You are on page 1of 138

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS


(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

accused in the other. But more fundamental is the fact that We


do not have here a situation involving two tribunals vested with
Remedial-Law-Revie concurrent jurisdiction over a particular crime so as to apply
w-2-Evidence.docx the rule that the court or tribunal which first takes cognizance
of the case acquires jurisdiction thereof exclusive of the
I. CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
other. The Military Commission is without power or authority
to hear and determine the particular offense charged against
1. PEOPLE VS MARIANO respondent Mariano, hence, there is no concurrent jurisdiction
between it and respondent court to speak of. Estafa as
Principle:
described in the Information filed in Criminal Case No. SM-
649 falls within the sole exclusive jurisdiction of civil courts.
 It is a settled rule that the jurisdiction of a court is
determined by the statute in force at the time of the
commencement of the action. The conferment of
jurisdiction upon courts or judicial tribunals is derived
exclusively from the constitution and statutes of the 2. HONRALES VS HONRALES (G.R.182651
forum. 8/25/2010)
Facts: Principle :

The office of the Provincial Fiscal of Bulacan filed an  Once jurisdiction is acquired by the court in which the
Information accusing private respondent herein Hermogenes Information is filed, it is there retained.
Mariano, Liaison Officer of incumbent Municipal Mayor, Facts:
Constantino Nolasco, of estafa for misappropriating and
Respondent Jonathan Honorales was charged of parricide when
converting to his own personal use and benefit items valued at
she shot her wife, Jane Honorales. Assistant City Prosecutor
$717.50 or P4,797.35, belonging to USAID/NEC, to the damage
Rebagay then issued a recommendation of withdrawing the
and prejudice of the said owner in the said sum of $717,50 or
parricide and instead respondent be charged only of reckless
P4,797.35. In his motion to quash, Mariano claimed that the
imprudence resulting to parricide.
items which were the subject matter of the Information against
him were the same items for which Mayor Constantino A.
While the motion to withdraw the information was still
Nolasco of San Jose del Monte, province of Bulacan, was
pending, a new information for reckless imprudence was filed
indicted before a Military Commission under a charge of
with the MTC against respondent. The heirs meanwhile filed for
malversation of public property, and for which Mayor Nolasco
a petition for review with the Office of the President for the
had been found guilty. He argued that inasmuch as the case
downgrading of the offense. While the motion to withdraw was
against Mayor Nolasco had already been decided by the Military
still pending, respondent pleaded guilty and was found guilty
Tribunal, the Court of First Instance of Bulacan had lost
with the MTC for reckless imprudence. He also filed a motion to
jurisdiction over the case against him.
dismiss his parricide case with the RTC citing that his
ISSUE: Whether or not civil courts and military commissions arraignment and judgment as grounds for dismissal.
exercise concurrent jurisdiction over the offense of estafa of
goods valued at not more than six thousand pesos and allegedly Heirs then filed a certiorari with the CA as the RTC judge
committed by a civilian granted respondent's motion to withdraw arguing that an
appeal was still pending. CA denied the certiorari and cited that
HELD: double jeopardy would attach.

Respondent court therefore gravely erred when it ruled that it Petitioner argues that MTC did not acquire jurisdiction and it
lost jurisdiction over the estafa case against respondent remained in the RTC.
Mariano with the filing of the malversation charge against
Mayor Nolasco before the Military Commission. Estafa and
malversation are two separate and distinct offenses and in the
Issue : Whether MeTC or RTC has jurisdiction over the case.
case now before us the accused in one is different from the

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


1
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

belongs, exclusively exercises the general powers of


Held: administration and corporate powers in the university. It is
In this case, the MeTC took cognizance of the Information for well-established in corporation law that the corporation can act
reckless imprudence resulting in parricide while the criminal
only through its board of directors, or board of trustees in the
case for parricide was still pending before the RTC. In Dioquino
v. Cruz, Jr., we held that once jurisdiction is acquired by the case of non-stock corporations.
court in which the Information is filed, it is there
retained. Therefore, as the offense of reckless imprudence Issue: Whether a government scholar and UP student regent
resulting in parricide was included in the charge for intentional is a public officer.
parricide pending before the RTC, the MeTC clearly had no
jurisdiction over the criminal case filed before it, the RTC Held:
having retained jurisdiction over the offense to the exclusion of
all other courts. The requisite that the judgment be rendered by Yes.
a court of competent jurisdiction is therefore absent.
A decision rendered without jurisdiction is not a decision in First, Public office is the right, authority, and duty created and
contemplation of law and can never become executory. conferred by law, by which for a given period, either fixed by
law or enduring at the pleasure of the creating power, an
individual is invested with some portion of the sovereign
3. SERNA VS SANDIGANBAYAN functions of the government, to be exercise by him for the
Principle : benefit of the public. The individual so invested is a public
officer. (Laurel vs Desierto)
 P.D. No. 1606 explicitly vest the Sandiganbayan with
jurisdiction over Presidents, directors or trustees, or Delegation of sovereign functions is essential in the public
managers of government-owned or controlled office. An investment in an individual of some portion of the
corporations, state universities or educational sovereign functions of the government, to be exercised by him
institutions or foundations. for the benefit of the public makes one a public officer.
Facts:
Second, Section 4(A)(1)(g) of P.D. No. 1606 explicitly vest the
Serana is a government scholar and a student regent of the Sandiganbayan with jurisdiction over Presidents, directors or
University of the Phillipines charged with Estafa . While in the trustees, or managers of government-owned or controlled
performance of her official functions, she represented to former corporations, state universities or educational institutions or
President Estrada that the renovation of the Vinzons Hall of the foundations. Hence, it is not only the salary grade that
UP will be renovated and renamed as Pres. Joseph Ejercito determines the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
Estrada Student Hall and for which purpose accused requested
the amount of P15,000,000.00. As the Sandiganbayan pointed out, the BOR performs functions
similar to those of a board of trustees of a non-stock
Petitioner claims that the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction corporation. By express mandate of law, petitioner is a public
over her person because as a UP student regent, she was not a officer as contemplated by P.D. No. 1606 the statute defining
public officer due to the following: 1.) that being merely a the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
member in representation of the student body since she merely
represented her peers; 2.) that she was a simple student and Third, it is well established that compensation is not an
did not receive any salary as a UP student regent; and 3.) she essential element of public office. At most, it is merely
does not fall under Salary Grade 27. incidental to the public office.

The Ombudsman contends that petitioner, as a member of the Hence, Petitioner is a public officer by express mandate of
BOR is a public officer, since she had the general powers of P.D.No. 1606 and jurisprudence.
administration and exercise the corporate powers of UP.
Compensation is not an essential part of public office.
4. PEOPLE VS MONTEJO (108 SCRA 652)
Moreover, the Charter of the University of the Philippines
reveals that the Board of Regents, to which accused-movant Principle:

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


2
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

 It is apparent from these allegations that, although In this case, the crime of murder was in relation to public office
public office is not an element of the crime of murder because the killing of Teban was under the command of Mayor
in abstract, as committed by the main respondents Brown along with his order to establish a sub-camp in Tipotipo
herein, according to the amended information, the Basilan. It is by his position wherein he order the arrest of
offense therein charged is intimately connected with Teban, torture and killing him eventually. And to justify such
their respective offices and was perpetrated while killing, Mayor Brown ordered for a simulation military
they were in the performance, though improper or encounter to justify that Teban was killed due to a legitimate
irregular, of their official functions. Indeed, they had police operation.
no personal motive to commit the crime and they
would not have committed it had they not held their
aforesaid offices. The co-defendants of respondent
Leroy S. Brown, obeyed his instructions because he 5. BARRIGA VS SANDIGANBAYAN
was their superior officer, as Mayor of Basilan City. (4/26/2005)

Facts:
Principle:

Respondent Montejo is a Court of First Instance Judge of


 Rep. Act No. 8249,[13] which amended Section 4 of
Zamboanga City. The other respondents which are accused in
Presidential Decree No. 1606, provides, inter alia, that
this case are public officer. Mayo Leroy Brown is the City Mayor
the Sandiganbayan has original jurisdiction over
of Basilan City, while the others are police officers. Accused
crimes and felonies committed by public officers and
were charged in the information of a crime of murder. The
employees, at least one of whom belongs to any of the
Judge in this case, allowed Senator Roseller Lim to be the
five categories thereunder enumerated at the time of
counsel for the accused. The prosecution filed a certiorari and
the commission of such crimes.[14] There are two
prohibition to the Court of Appeals, alleging that the
classes of public office-related crimes under
Respondent Judge gravely abuse his discretion amounting to
subparagraph (b) of Section 4 of Rep. Act No. 8249:
lack of jurisdiction when he allowed a Senator to be the counsel
first, those crimes or felonies in which the public office
of the accused and excluding relevant evidence for the
is a constituent element as defined by statute and the
prosecution. Under the 1935 Constitution, a senator is
relation between the crime and the offense is such
prohibited to appear in court as counsel for the accused
that, in a legal sense, the offense committed cannot
wherein a government official is tried for a crime in relation to
exist without the office;[15] second, such offenses or
his office.
felonies which are intimately connected with the
public office and are perpetrated by the public officer
Issue: Is the crime of murder has a semblance of relation to the or employee while in the performance of his official
public office of a public officer? functions, through improper or irregular conduct.[16]

Ruling:  The Sandiganbayan has original jurisdiction over


criminal cases involving crimes and felonies under the
Yes. first classification. Considering that the public office of
the accused is by statute a constituent element of the
crime charged, there is no need for the Prosecutor to
It is apparent from these allegations that, although public office
state in the Information specific factual allegations of
is not an element of the crime of murder in abstract, as
the intimacy between the office and the crime charged,
committed by the main respondents herein, according to the
or that the accused committed the crime in the
amended information, the offense therein charged is intimately
performance of his duties. However, the
connected with their respective offices and was perpetrated
Sandiganbayan likewise has original jurisdiction over
while they were in the performance, though improper or
criminal cases involving crimes or felonies committed
irregular, of their official functions. Indeed, they had no
by the public officers and employees enumerated in
personal motive to commit the crime and they would not have
Section (a) (1) to (5) under the second classification if
committed it had they not held their aforesaid offices. The co-
the Information contains specific factual allegations
defendants of respondent Leroy S. Brown, obeyed his
showing the intimate connection between the offense
instructions because he was their superior officer, as Mayor of
charged and the public office of the accused, and the
Basilan City.
discharge of his official duties or functions - whether
improper or irregular.[17] The requirement is not
complied with if the Information merely alleges that

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


3
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

the accused committed the crime charged in relation the Prosecutor to state in the Information specific factual
to his office because such allegation is merely a allegations of the intimacy between the office and the crime
conclusion of law.[18] charged, or that the accused committed the crime in the
performance of his duties. However, the Sandiganbayan
Facts: likewise has original jurisdiction over criminal cases involving
crimes or felonies committed by the public officers and
employees enumerated in Section (a) (1) to (5) under the
Petitioner is in this case is one of the accused pending with the
second classification if the Information contains specific factual
Sandiganbayan for a crime of malversation of public funds and
allegations showing the intimate connection between the
technical malversation. Petitioner is a Municipal Accountant of
offense charged and the public office of the accused, and the
Carmen, Cebu while his co accused is the Mayor of Carmen Cebu
discharge of his official duties or functions - whether improper
were conspiring with each other to commit the crime. The
or irregular.[17] The requirement is not complied with if the
Office of the Ombudsman filed an information and later on filed
Information merely alleges that the accused committed the
a motion to amend the information which the SB allowed.
crime charged in relation to his office because such allegation is
Petitioner filed a motion to quash the information on the
merely a conclusion of law.[18]
ground that Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction because his
salary is only Salary Grade 24. Furthermore, he cannot be
charged as liable to malversation because he is not an
accountable officer. The motion was denied by the 6. LACSON VS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY (301
Sandiganbayan and thus petitioner resorted to Rule 65 to the SCRA 298)
Supreme Court.
Principle:
Issue: Whether or not the Sandiganbayan have jurisdiction
over the case?  The jurisdiction of a court is defined by the
Constitution or statute. The elements of that definition
must appear in the complaint or information so as to
Ruling: ascertain which court has jurisdiction over a case.
Hence the elementary rule that the jurisdiction of a
Yes. court is determined by the allegations in the complaint
or information,[61] and not by the evidence presented
The municipal mayor is SG 27 and being an accountant by the parties at the trial.
conspiring with the mayor, it is immaterial that petitioner is
only SG 24 and not an accountable officer.  As stated earlier, the multiple murder charge against
petitioner and intervenors falls under Section 4
Rep. Act No. 8249,[13] which amended Section 4 of Presidential [paragraph b] of R.A. 8249. Section 4 requires that the
Decree No. 1606, provides, inter alia, that the Sandiganbayan offense charged must be committed by the offender in
has original jurisdiction over crimes and felonies committed by relation to his office in order for the Sandiganbayan to
public officers and employees, at least one of whom belongs to have jurisdiction over it.[63] This jurisdictional
any of the five categories thereunder enumerated at the time of requirement is in accordance with Section 5, Article
the commission of such crimes.[14] There are two classes of XIII of the 1973 Constitution which mandated that the
public office-related crimes under subparagraph (b) of Section Sandiganbayan shall have jurisdiction over criminal
4 of Rep. Act No. 8249: first, those crimes or felonies in which cases committed by public officers and employees,
the public office is a constituent element as defined by statute including those in government-owned or controlled
and the relation between the crime and the offense is such that, corporations, in relation to their office as may be
in a legal sense, the offense committed cannot exist without the determined by law. This constitutional mandate was
office;[15] second, such offenses or felonies which are reiterated in the new (1987) Constitution when it
intimately connected with the public office and are perpetrated declared in Section 4 thereof that the Sandiganbayan
by the public officer or employee while in the performance of shall continue to function and exercise its jurisdiction
his official functions, through improper or irregular as now or hereafter may be provided by law.
conduct.[16]

The Sandiganbayan has original jurisdiction over criminal cases


involving crimes and felonies under the first classification.
Considering that the public office of the accused is by statute a Another principle:
constituent element of the crime charged, there is no need for

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


4
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

While the above-quoted information states that the above- Facts:


named principal accused committed the crime of murder in
relation to their public office, there is, however, no specific Petitioner in this case was charged as an accessory of the crime
allegation of facts that the shooting of the victim by the said murder of Kuratong Baleleng. Petitioners and other accused
principal accused was intimately related to the discharge of were charged for the crime of multiple murder before the
their official duties as police officers. Likewise, the amended Sandiganbayan on the alleged shoot out that killed 25 members
information does not indicate that the said accused arrested of the Kuratong Baleleng. At the time the information was filed
and investigated the victim and then killed the latter while in by the Office of the Ombudsman before the Sandiganbayan, the
their custody. rank of PNP Chief Superentendent (the rank of the petitioner)
was not included in the nomenclature of officers wherein
Even the allegations concerning the criminal participation of Sandiganbayan have exclusive original jurisdiction of crimes
herein petitioner and intervenors as among the accessories committed in relation to his office.
after-the-fact, the amended information is vague on this. It is
alleged therein that the said accessories concealed the crime The information was amended with the following wordings:
herein-above alleged by, among others, falsely representing
that there were no arrests made during the raid conducted by
AMENDED INFORMATION
the accused herein at Superville Subdivision, Paraaque, Metro
Manila, on or about the early dawn of May 18, 1995. The sudden
mention of the arrests made during the raid conducted by the The undersigned Special Prosecution Officer III, Office of the
accused surprises the reader. There is no indication in the Ombudsman hereby accuses CHIEF INSP MICHAEL RAY
amended information that the victim was one of those arrested AQUINO, CHIEF INSP ERWIN T. VILLACORTE SENIOR INSP
by the accused during the raid. Worse, the raid and arrests were JOSELITO T. ESQUIVEL. INSP RICARDO G. DANDAN SPO4
allegedly conducted at Superville Subdivision, Paraaque, Metro VICENTE P. ARNADO, SPO4 ROBERTO F. LANGCAUON, SPO2
Manila but, as alleged in the immediately preceding paragraph VIRGILIO V. PARAGAS, SPO2 ROLANDO R. JIMENEZ, SPO1
of the amended information, the shooting of the victim by the WILFREDO C. CUARTERO, SPO1 ROBERTO O. AGBALOG, SPO1
principal accused occurred in Mariano Marcos Avenue, Quezon OSMUNDO B. CARINO, CHIEF SUPT. JEWEL F. CANSON, CHIEF
City. How the raid, arrests and shooting happened in two places SUPT. ROMEO M. ACOP, CHIEF SUPT. PANFILO M. LACSON,
far away from each other is puzzling. Again, while there is the SENIOR SUPT. FRANCISCO G. ZUBIA, JR., SUPT. ALMARIO A.
allegation in the amended information that the said accessories HILARIO, CHIEF INSP. CESAR O. MANCAO III, CHIEF INSP. GIL
committed the offense in relation to office as officers and L. MENESES, SENIOR INISP. GLENN DUMLAO, SENIOR INSP.
members of the (PNP), we, however, do not see the intimate ROLANDO ANDUYAN, INSP. CEASAR TANNAGAN, SPO3 WILLY
connection between the offense charged and the accuseds NUAS, SPO3 CICERO S. BACOLOD, PO2 NORBERTO LASAGA,
official functions, which, as earlier discussed, is an essential PO2 LEONARDO GLORIA and PO2 ALEJANDRO G. LIWANAG of
element in determining the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. the crime of Murder as defined and penalized under Article 248
of the Revised Penal Codecommitted as follows:
The stringent requirement that the charge be set forth with
such particularity as will reasonably indicate the exact offense That on or about May 18, 1995 in Mariano Marcos Avenue,
which the accused is alleged to have committed in relation to Quezon City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
his office was, sad to say, not satisfied. We believe that the mere Honorable Court, the accused CHIEF INISP. MICHAEL RAY
allegation in the amended information that the offense was AQUINO, CHIEF INSP. ERWIN T. VILLACORTE, SENIOR INSP.
committed by the accused public officer in relation to his office JOSELITO T. ESQUIVEL, INSP. RICARDO G. DANDAN, SPO4
is not sufficient. That phrase is merely a conclusion of law, not VICENTE P. ARNADO SPO4 ROBERTO F. LANGCAUON, SPO2
a factual averment that would show the close intimacy between VIRGILIO V. PARAGAS, SPO2 ROLANDO R. JIMENEZ, SPO1
the offense charged and the discharge of the accuseds official WILFREDO C. CUARTERO, SPO1 ROBERTO O. AGBALOG, and
duties. SPO1 OSMUNDO B. CARINO all taking advantage of their public
and official positions as officers and members of the Philippine
National Police and committing the acts herein alleged in
In People vs. Magallanes,[72] where the jurisdiction between
relation to their public office, conspiring with intent to kill and
the Regional Trial Court and the Sandiganbayan was at issue,
using firearms with treachery, evident premeditation and
we ruled:
taking advantage of their superior strengths did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously shoot JOEL AMORA,
It is an elementary rule that jurisdiction is determined by the thereby inflicting upon the latter mortal wounds which caused
allegations in the complaint or information and not by the his instantaneous death to the damage and prejudice of the
result of evidence after trial. heirs of the said victim.

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


5
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

That accused CHIEF SUPT. JEWEL F. CANSON CHIEF SUPT. alleged therein that the said accessories concealed the crime
ROMEO M. ACOP CHIEF SUPT. PANFILO M. LACSON, SENIOR herein-above alleged by, among others, falsely representing
SUPT. FRANCISCO G. ZUBIA, JR. SUPT. ALMARIO A. HILARIO, that there were no arrests made during the raid conducted by
CHIEF INSP. CESAR O. MANCAO II CHIEF INSP. GIL L. MENESES, the accused herein at Superville Subdivision, Paraaque, Metro
SENIOR INSP. GLENN DUMLAO, SENIOR INSP. ROLANDO Manila, on or about the early dawn of May 18, 1995. The sudden
ANDUYAN, INSP. CEASAR TANNAGAN SPO3 WILLY NUAS SPO3 mention of the arrests made during the raid conducted by the
CICERO S. BACOLOD, PO2 ALEJANDRO G. LIWANAG accused surprises the reader. There is no indication in the
committing the acts in relation to office as officers and amended information that the victim was one of those arrested
members of the Philippine National Police are charged herein by the accused during the raid. Worse, the raid and arrests were
as accessories after-the-fact for concealing the crime herein allegedly conducted at Superville Subdivision, Paraaque, Metro
above alleged by among others falsely representing that there Manila but, as alleged in the immediately preceding paragraph
were no arrests made during the raid conducted by the accused of the amended information, the shooting of the victim by the
herein at Superville Subdivision, Paraaque, Metro Manila on or principal accused occurred in Mariano Marcos Avenue, Quezon
about the early dawn of May 18, 1995. City. How the raid, arrests and shooting happened in two places
far away from each other is puzzling. Again, while there is the
CONTRARY TO LAW allegation in the amended information that the said accessories
committed the offense in relation to office as officers and
members of the (PNP), we, however, do not see the intimate
The accused filed a motion to quash information on the ground
connection between the offense charged and the accuseds
that SB have no jurisdiction over them. SB issued a resolution
official functions, which, as earlier discussed, is an essential
transferring the case of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.
element in determining the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
Before the trial at the RTC commenced, a law was passed by
Congress and signed by the President amending the
Sandiganbayan Law which includes the rank of Chief The stringent requirement that the charge be set forth with
Superintendent in the nomenclature of public officers triable such particularity as will reasonably indicate the exact offense
with the SB. Furthermore, in its transitory provision, it states which the accused is alleged to have committed in relation to
that those cases which are cognizable with the SB but pending his office was, sad to say, not satisfied. We believe that the mere
before the RTC and the trial in the RTC have not yet started, the allegation in the amended information that the offense was
Sandiganbayan will have the exclusive and original jurisdiction committed by the accused public officer in relation to his office
to try the case. is not sufficient. That phrase is merely a conclusion of law, not
a factual averment that would show the close intimacy between
the offense charged and the discharge of the accuseds official
The Sandiganbayan took cognizance with the case. Hence the
duties.
Petitioner filed a petition before the Supreme Court for
certiorari and prohibition.
In People vs. Magallanes,[72] where the jurisdiction between
the Regional Trial Court and the Sandiganbayan was at issue,
Issue: Does the Sandiganbayan have jurisdiction over the case?
we ruled:

Ruling:
It is an elementary rule that jurisdiction is determined by the
allegations in the complaint or information and not by the
NO. result of evidence after trial.

While the above-quoted information states that the above- Hence, the Sandiganbayan was ordered by the Supreme Court
named principal accused committed the crime of murder in to transfer the case to the RTC Quezon City.
relation to their public office, there is, however, no specific
allegation of facts that the shooting of the victim by the said
principal accused was intimately related to the discharge of
their official duties as police officers. Likewise, the amended
information does not indicate that the said accused arrested 7. PEOPLE VS YADAO (265 SCRA 204)
and investigated the victim and then killed the latter while in Facts:
their custody.
A number of high ranking police officers (including Panfilo
Even the allegations concerning the criminal participation of Lacson) were implicated in the murder of 11 alleged members
herein petitioner and intervenors as among the accessories of the Kuratong-baleleng gang.
after-the-fact, the amended information is vague on this. It is

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


6
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

The case was filed with the regular court. However, evidence Thus, Mr. Garcia filed before the CA a petition for prohibition
were submitted showing that two of the deceased victims are and assails the constitutionality of the RA 9262 for violating the
minors. This prompted the prosecution to amend the due process and equal protection clauses. CA dismissed the
information and file motion for re-raffle of the case with the petition on the ground that it was not raised at the earliest
family court. The motion was denied on the ground that the opportunity, i.e., at the trial in the family court. The petitioner,
minor-victims were already dead. on the other hand avers that it could not raise the issue of
constitutionality before the family court as it would constitute
Issue: WON the family court has jurisdiction. a collateral attack on the statute and that the family court acting
as a special court has no authority to determine issue of
Ruling:
constitutionality.
Yes. The Court is not impervious to the provisions of Section 5
Issue: Does the family court, acting on special jurisdiction have
of R.A. 8369, that vest in family court’s jurisdiction over
the authority to pass on the constitutionality of VAWC?
violations of R.A. 7610, which in turn covers murder cases
where the victim is a minor. Thus: Ruling:

Sec. 5. Jurisdiction of Family Courts. – The Family Courts shall Family Courts have authority and jurisdiction to consider the
have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and decide the constitutionality of a statute.
following cases: a) Criminal cases where one or more of the
accused is below eighteen (18) years of age but not less than nine At the outset, it must be stressed that Family Courts are special
(9) years of age, or where one or more of the victims is a minor courts, of the same level as Regional Trial Courts. Under R.A.
at the time of the commission of the offense: Provided, That if 8369, otherwise known as the "Family Courts Act of 1997,"
the minor is found guilty, the court shall promulgate sentence and family courts have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and
ascertain any civil liability which the respondent may have decide cases of domestic violence against women and children.
incurred.
Inspite of its designation as a family court, the RTC of
Undoubtedly, in vesting in family courts exclusive original Bacolod City remains possessed of authority as a court of
jurisdiction over criminal cases involving minors, the law general original jurisdiction to pass upon all kinds of cases
whether civil, criminal, special proceedings, land registration,
but seeks to protect their welfare and best interests. For
guardianship, naturalization, admiralty or insolvency. It is
this reason, when the need for such protection is not settled that RTCs have jurisdiction to resolve the
compromised, the Court is able to relax the rule. constitutionality of a statute, "this authority being
embraced in the general definition of the judicial power to
Here, the two minor victims, for whose interests the people determine what the valid and binding laws are by the
wanted the murder cases moved to a family court, are dead. As criterion of their conformity to the fundamental law."
respondents aptly point out, there is no living minor in the
murder cases that require the special attention and protection The Constitution vests the power of judicial review or the
of a family court. In fact, no minor would appear as party in power to declare the constitutionality or validity of a law,
those cases during trial since the minor victims are represented treaty, international or executive agreement, presidential
decree, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation not only in
by their parents who had become the real private offended
this Court, but in all RTCs.
parties.

8. GARCIA VS DRILON (VAWC CASE) II. RULE 110 (PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES)


Facts:
9. PANAGUITON VS DOJ (11/25/2008)
Ms. Garcia filed an application for TRO against her husband, Facts:
pursuant to R.A. 9262 (VAWC). She claimed to be a victim of
violence. The RTC (acting as family court) granted the Cawili and Tongson borrowed money from Panaguiton and
application. later issued checks as payment. But checks were dishonored.

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


7
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

After the 1995 demand to pay failed, Panaguiton filed a


complaint against Cawili and Tongson for violating BP Blg. 22
10. SEC VS INTERPORT (10/6/2008)
before the Prosecutor's Office on June 1995. PRICIPLE:
The DOJ's flip-flopping resolutions took the case 9 years on  It is well settled that every law has in its favor the
preliminary investigation stage until it finally settle the issue presumption of validity. Unless and until a specific
holding that the case had already prescribed pursuant to Act. provision of the law is declared invalid and
No. 3326 (which gives the BP22 a prescription of 4 years). unconstitutional, the same is valid and binding for all
intents and purposes.
It states that in this case the 4 year period started on the date
the checks were dishonored and that the filing of complaint in
 It is an established doctrine that a preliminary
the prosecutor's office did not interrupt the running of the
investigation interrupts the prescription period.
prescriptive period as the law (RA 3326) contemplates judicial
FACTS:
and not administrative proceedings.
Securities and Exchange Commission ordered an Omnibus
Issue: Whether the filing of the affidavit-complaint for violation
order which aims to create a special investigation panel to
of BP Blg. 22 against respondent with the Office of the City
investigate an insider trading.
Prosecutor interrupted the period of prescription of such
offense. Respondents then filed a petition before the CA questioning the
Omnibus Order. CA granted their motion and issued a writ of
Ruling:
preliminary injunction, which effectively enjoined the SEC from
Yes. There is no question that Act No. 3326, appropriately filing any criminal, civil or administrative case against the
entitled An Act to Establish Prescription for Violations of Special respondents.
Acts and Municipal Ordinances and to Provide When Prescription
ISSUES:
Shall Begin, is the law applicable to offenses under special laws
which do not provide their own prescriptive periods. Thus; 1. Whether the absence of implementing rules of
Revised Securities Act violates due process and equal
We agree that Act. No. 3326 applies to offenses under B.P. Blg. 22. protection of the respondents. (NO)
An offense under B.P. Blg. 22 merits the penalty of imprisonment 2. Whether the instant case has already prescribed. (NO,
of not less than thirty (30) days but not more than one year or by
PI interrupts the prescriptive period)
a fine, hence, under Act No. 3326, a violation of B.P. Blg. 22
prescribes in four (4) years from the commission of the offense or,
if the same be not known at the time, from the discovery thereof. RULING:
Nevertheless, we cannot uphold the position that only the
filing of a case in court can toll the running of the 1. In the absence of any constitutional or statutory
prescriptive period. infirmity, which may concern Sections 30 and 36 of the
Revised Securities Act, this Court upholds these
While it may be observed that the term "judicial proceedings" provisions as legal and binding. It is well settled that
in Sec. 2 of Act No. 3326 appears before "investigation and every law has in its favor the presumption of
punishment" in the old law, with the subsequent change in set- validity. Unless and until a specific provision of the law
up whereby the investigation of the charge for purposes of
is declared invalid and unconstitutional, the same is
prosecution has become the exclusive function of the executive
branch, the term "proceedings" should now be understood valid and binding for all intents and purposes. The
either executive or judicial in character: executive when it mere absence of implementing rules cannot effectively
involves the investigation phase and judicial when it refers invalidate provisions of law, where a reasonable
to the trial and judgment stage. With this clarification, any construction that will support the law may be given.
kind of investigative proceeding instituted against the guilty
person which may ultimately lead to his prosecution should be
The necessity for vesting administrative authorities with power
sufficient to toll prescription.
to make rules and regulations is based on the impracticability
of lawmakers providing general regulations for various and

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


8
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

varying details of management. To rule that the absence of offenses punished under special laws, such as
implementing rules can render ineffective an act of Congress, violations of the Revised Securities Act, is twelve years
such as the Revised Securities Act, would empower the
under Section 1 of Act No. 3326, as amended by Act No.
administrative bodies to defeat the legislative will by delaying
3585 and Act No. 3763, entitled An Act to Establish
the implementing rules. To assert that a law is less than a law,
Periods of Prescription for Violations Penalized by
because it is made to depend on a future event or act, is to rob
Special Acts and Municipal Ordinances and to Provide
the Legislature of the power to act wisely for the public welfare
whenever a law is passed relating to a state of affairs not yet When Prescription Shall Begin to Act. Since the offense
developed, or to things future and impossible to fully know. It was committed in 1994, they reasoned that
is well established that administrative authorities have the prescription set in as early as 2006 and rendered this
power to promulgate rules and regulations to implement a case moot. Such position, however, is incongruent with
given statute and to effectuate its policies, provided such rules the factual circumstances of this case, as well as the
and regulations conform to the terms and standards prescribed applicable laws and jurisprudence.
by the statute as well as purport to carry into effect its general
policies. Nevertheless, it is undisputable that the rules and It is an established doctrine that a preliminary investigation
regulations cannot assert for themselves a more extensive interrupts the prescription period. A preliminary investigation
prerogative or deviate from the mandate of the
is essentially a determination whether an offense has been
statute. Moreover, where the statute contains sufficient
committed, and whether there is probable cause for the
standards and an unmistakable intent, as in the case of Sections
accused to have committed an offense:
30 and 36 of the Revised Securities Act, there should be no
impediment to its implementation.
A preliminary investigation is merely inquisitorial,
and it is often the only means of discovering the
The Court of Appeals made an evident mistake when it ruled persons who may be reasonably charged with a crime,
that no civil, criminal or administrative actions can possibly be to enable the fiscal to prepare the complaint or
information. It is not a trial of the case on the merits
had against the respondents in connection with Sections 8, 30
and has no purpose except that of determining
and 36 of the Revised Securities Act due to the absence of whether a crime has been committed or whether there
implementing rules. These provisions are sufficiently clear and is probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty
complete by themselves. Their requirements are specifically thereof.
set out, and the acts which are enjoined are determinable. In
particular, Section 8 of the Revised Securities Act is a Under Section 45 of the Revised Securities Act, which is
straightforward enumeration of the procedure for the entitled Investigations, Injunctions and Prosecution of
registration of securities and the particular matters which need Offenses, the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) has the
to be reported in the registration statement thereof. The authority to make such investigations as it deems necessary to
Decision, dated 20 August 1998, provides no valid reason to determine whether any person has violated or is about to
exempt the respondent IRC from such requirements. The lack violate any provision of this Act XXX. After a finding that a
of implementing rules cannot suspend the effectivity of these person has violated the Revised Securities Act, the SEC may
provisions. Thus, this Court cannot find any cogent reason to refer the case to the DOJ for preliminary investigation and
prevent the SEC from exercising its authority to investigate prosecution.
respondents for violation of Section 8 of the Revised Securities
While the SEC investigation serves the same purpose and
Act.
entails substantially similar duties as the preliminary
investigation conducted by the DOJ, this process cannot simply
2. Respondents have taken the position that this case is
be disregarded. In Baviera v. Paglinawan, this Court enunciated
moot and academic, since any criminal complaint that
that a criminal complaint is first filed with the SEC, which
may be filed against them resulting from the SECs
determines the existence of probable cause, before a
investigation of this case has already prescribed. They
preliminary investigation can be commenced by the DOJ. In
point out that the prescription period applicable to

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


9
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

the aforecited case, the complaint filed directly with the DOJ Respondent Judge Lidua, Sr., Presiding Judge of the MTC of
was dismissed on the ground that it should have been filed first Baguio City, granted the accused's Motion to Quash and
with the SEC. Similarly, the offense was a violation of the dismissed the cases. Petitioner filed MR but was denied.
Securities Regulations Code, wherein the procedure for Petitioner then filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with
criminal prosecution was reproduced from Section 45 of the the RTC of Baguio City. Petitioners argued that the respondent
Revised Securities Act. judge ruled erroneously saying that the prescriptive period for
the offenses charged against the private respondents was
Indubitably, the prescription period is interrupted by halted by the filing of the Complaint/Information in court and
commencing the proceedings for the prosecution of the not when the Affidavit-Complaints were filed with the Office of
accused. In criminal cases, this is accomplished by initiating the the City Prosecutor of Baguio City.
preliminary investigation. The prosecution of offenses
RTC of Baguio dismissed the Petition for Certiorari. It held that,
punishable under the Revised Securities Act and the Securities
since cases of city ordinance violations may only be commenced
Regulations Code is initiated by the filing of a complaint with
by the filing of an Information, then the two-month prescription
the SEC or by an investigation conducted by the period may only be interrupted by the filing of Informations
SEC motu proprio. Only after a finding of probable cause is against the respondents in court. Hence, this petition.
made by the SEC can the DOJ instigate a preliminary
investigation. Thus, the investigation that was commenced by ISSUE: Whether the filing of the Complaint with the Office of
the SEC in 1995, soon after it discovered the questionable acts the City Prosecutor tolled the prescription period of the
of the respondents, effectively interrupted the prescription commission of the offense charged against respondents. (NO)
period. Given the nature and purpose of the investigation
RULING:
conducted by the SEC, which is equivalent to the preliminary
investigation conducted by the DOJ in criminal cases, such The Petition is denied.
investigation would surely interrupt the prescription
period. The resolution of this case requires an examination of both the
substantive law and the procedural rules governing the
prosecution of the offense. With regard to the prescription
period, Act No. 3326, as amended, is the only statute that
11. JADEWELL PARKING SYSTEM VS LIDUA,
provides for any prescriptive period for the violation of special
SR. (G.R. 169588 10/7/2013) CITY laws and municipal ordinances. No other special law provides
ORDINANCE any other prescriptive period, and the law does not provide any
PRICIPLE: other distinction. Petitioner may not argue that Act No. 3326 as
amended does not apply.
 Under Section 9 of the Rule [sic] on Summary
Procedure, the running of the prescriptive period shall In resolving the issue of prescription of the offense charged, the
be halted on the date the case is filed in Court and not following should be considered: (1) the period of prescription
on any date before that. for the offense charged; (2) the time the period of prescription
FACTS: starts to run; and (3) the time the prescriptive period was
interrupted.
On October 2, 2003, two criminal Informations were
filed with the MTC Baguio City. With regard to the period of prescription, it is now without
question that it is two months for the offense charged under
Respondent Benedicto Balajadia and the other accused filed a City Ordinance 003-2000.
Motion to Quash and/or Manifestation which sought the
quashal of the two Informations on the following grounds:
extinguishment of criminal action or liability due to 12. REODICA VS CA  PUNISHED BY RPC BUT
prescription; failure of the Information to state facts that COVERED BY SUMMARY PROCEDURE
charged an offense; and the imposition of charges on PRICIPLE:
respondents with more than one offense.

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


10
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

 The jurisdiction to try a criminal action is to be Following Lontok, the conclusion is inescapable here, that
determined by the law in force at the time of the the quasi offense of reckless imprudence resulting in slight
institution of the action, unless the statute expressly physical injuries should have been charged in a separate
provides, or is construed to the effect that it is intended information because it is not covered by Article 48 of the
to operate as to actions pending before its enactment. Revised Penal Code. However, petitioner may no longer
It must be stressed that prescription in criminal cases is a matter question, at this stage, the duplicitous character of the
of substantive law. Pursuant to Section 5(5), Article VIII of the information, i.e., charging two separate offenses in one
Constitution, this Court, in the exercise of its rule-making power, information, to wit: (1) reckless imprudence resulting in
is not allowed to diminish, increase or modify substantive damage to property; and (2) reckless imprudence resulting in
rights. Hence, in case of conflict between the Rule on Summary slight physical injuries. This defect was deemed waived by her
Procedure promulgated by this Court and the Revised Penal Code, failure to raise it in a motion to quash before she pleaded to the
the latter prevails. information. Under Section 3, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court,
when two or more offenses are charged in a single complaint or
FACTS: information and the accused fails to object to it before trial, the
court may convict the accused of as many offenses as are
An information was filed before the RTC of Makati charging
charged and proved and impose on him the penalty for each of
petitioner (Reodica) with Reckless Imprudence Resulting in
them
Damage to Property with Slight Physical Injury.
2.
Upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty to the
charge. Trial then ensued. The jurisdiction to try a criminal action is to be determined by
the law in force at the time of the institution of the action, unless
RTC rendered a decision convicting petitioner of the quasi the statute expressly provides, or is construed to the effect that
offense of reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property it is intended to operate as to actions pending before its
with slight physical injuries, and sentencing her to suffer enactment.
imprisonment of six (6) months of arresto mayor, and to pay the
At the time of the filing of the information in this case, the law
complainant, Norberto Bonsol, the sum of P13,542 without
in force was Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, otherwise known as The
subsidiary impairment in case of insolvency.
Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980. Section 32(2) thereof
Petitioner appealed from the decision to the CA. After her provided that except in cases falling within the exclusive
motions for extension of time to file her brief were granted, she original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts and of the
filed a Motion to Withdraw Appeal for Probation Purposes, and Sandiganbayan, the Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTCs),
to Suspend, Ex Abundanti Cautela, Period for Filing Appellants Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs), and Municipal Circuit Trial
Brief. However, respondent CA denied this motion and directed Courts (MCTCs) had exclusive original jurisdiction over all
petitioner to file her brief. offenses punishable with imprisonment of not exceeding four
years and two months, or a fine of not more than four thousand
CA affirmed. pesos, or both fine and imprisonment, regardless of other
imposable accessory or other penalties, including the civil
ISSUES:
liability arising from such offenses or predicated thereon,
irrespective of kind, nature, value or amount thereof.
1. Whether the duplicity of the information may be
questioned for the first time on appeal. (NO) The criminal jurisdiction of the lower courts was then
2. Whether the Regional Trial Court had jurisdiction determined by the duration of the imprisonment and the
over the offenses in question. (NO, MTC-BP 129) amount of fine prescribed by law for the offense charged. The
question thus arises as to which court has jurisdiction over
3. Whether the quasi offenses in question have already
offenses punishable by censure, such as reckless imprudence
prescribed. (NO) resulting in slight physical injuries.

RULING:
3.
1.
Pursuant to Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code, reckless
imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries, being a light
felony, prescribes in two months. On the other hand, reckless

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


11
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

imprudence resulting in damage to property in the amount Violations Penalized by Special Acts and Municipal Ordinances
of P8,542.00, being a less grave felony whose penalty is arresto and to Provide When Prescription Shall Begin to Run. Under
mayor in its minimum and medium periods, prescribes in five Section 2 thereof, the period of prescription is suspended only
years. when judicial proceedings are instituted against the guilty
party. Accordingly, this Court held that the prescriptive period
To resolve the issue of whether these quasi offenses have was not interrupted by the filing of the complaint with the
already prescribed, it is necessary to determine whether the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor, as such did not constitute a
filing of the complaint with the fiscals office three days after the judicial proceeding; what could have tolled the prescriptive
incident in question tolled the running of the prescriptive period there was only the filing of the information in the proper
period. court.
Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code provides: In the instant case, as the offenses involved are covered by the
ART. 91. Computation of prescription of offenses. -- The Revised Penal Code, Article 91 thereof and the rulings
period of prescription shall commence to run from the in Francisco and Cuaresma apply. Thus, the prescriptive period
day on which the crime is discovered by the offended for the quasi offenses in question was interrupted by the filing
party, the authorities, or their agents, and shall be of the complaint with the fiscals office three days after the
interrupted by the filing of the complaint or vehicular mishap and remained tolled pending the termination
information, and shall commence to run again when of this case. We cannot, therefore, uphold petitioners defense of
such proceedings terminate without the accused being prescription of the offenses charged in the information in this
convicted or acquitted, or are unjustifiably stopped by case.
any reason not imputable to him. (emphasis supplied)
Notably, the aforequoted article, in declaring that the 13. PEOPLE VS MANABA
prescriptive period shall be interrupted by the filing of the PRINCIPLE:
complaint or information, does not distinguish whether the
complaint is filed for preliminary examination or investigation  Whether the defendant was placed in jeopardy for the
only or for an action on the merits. Thus, in Francisco v. Court of second time or not when he was tried in the present
Appeals and People v. Cuaresma, this Court held that the filing of case depends on whether or not he was tried on a valid
the complaint even with the fiscals office suspends the running complaint in the first case.
of the statute of limitations.
We cannot apply Section 9 of the Rule on Summary Procedure,  The first complaint filed against the defendant was
which provides that in cases covered thereby, such as offenses signed and sworn to by the chief of police. As it was not
punishable by imprisonment not exceeding 6 months, as in the the complaint of the offended party, it was not a valid
instant case, the prosecution commences by the filing of a complaint in accordance with the law. The judgment of
complaint or information directly with the MeTC, RTC or MCTC the court was therefore void for lack of jurisdiction
without need of a prior preliminary examination or over the subject matter, and the defendant was never
investigation; provided that in Metropolitan Manila and in jeopardy.
Chartered Cities, said cases may be commenced only by
information. However, this Section cannot be taken to mean FACTS:
that the prescriptive period is interrupted only by the filing of a
complaint or information directly with said courts. On May 10, 1932, the chief of police of Dumaguete subscribed
and swore to a criminal complaint charging Pedro Manaba with
It must be stressed that prescription in criminal cases is a the crime of rape, committed against Celestina Adapon before
matter of substantive law. Pursuant to Section 5(5), Article VIII the justice of the peace of Dumaguete and in due course, the
of the Constitution, this Court, in the exercise of its rule-making case reached the CFI. The accused was tried and convicted, but
power, is not allowed to diminish, increase or modify on motion of the defendant’s attorney, the judgment was set
substantive rights. Hence, in case of conflict between the Rule aside and the case dismissed on the ground that the court had
on Summary Procedure promulgated by this Court and the no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant or the subject
Revised Penal Code, the latter prevails. matter of the action, because the complaint had not been filed
by the offended party, but by the chief of police (Criminal case
Neither does Zaldivia control in this instance. It must be
No. 1801).
recalled that what was involved therein was a violation of a
municipal ordinance; thus, the applicable law was not Article
On August 17, 1932, the offended girl subscribed and swore to
91 of the Revised Penal Code, but Act. No. 3326, as amended,
a complaint charging the defendant with the crime of rape. This
entitled An Act to Establish Periods of Prescription for
was filed in the CFI (Criminal case No. 1872), but was referred

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


12
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

to the justice of the peace of Dumaguete for preliminary


investigation. The defendant waived his right to the
preliminary investigation, but asked for the dismissal of the
complaint on the ground that he had previously been placed in 14. PEOPLE VS FLORES (12/7/2002)
jeopardy for the same offense. This motion was denied by the
justice of the peace, and the case was remanded to the CFI PRINCIPLE:
where the provincial fiscal in an information charged the  It is settled that what characterizes the charge is the
defendant with having committed the crime of rape. actual recital of facts in the complaint or information.
For every crime is made up of certain acts and intent
The defendant renewed his motion for dismissal in the case on which must be set forth in the complaint or
the ground of double jeopardy, but his motion was denied; and information with reasonable particularity of time,
upon the termination of the trial, the defendant was found place, names (plaintiff and defendant), and
guilty and sentenced to suffer the penalty of 17 years and 4 circumstances. In other words, the complaint must
months of reclusion temporal, and the accessory penalties of contain a specific allegation of every fact and
the law, to indemnify the offended party, in the amount of P500, circumstance necessary to constitute the crime
to maintain the offspring, if any, at P5 a month until said charged, the accused being presumed to have no
offspring should become of age, and to pay the costs. independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the
offense.
ISSUE: Whether or not the accused can invoke double jeopardy.
FACTS:
RULING:
Pedro Flores Jr. y Flores alias Pesiong was charged for two
No. Whether the defendant was placed in jeopardy for the counts of rape of his then 11 year old daughter. The criminal
second time or not when he was tried in the present case complaint read as follows: “That xxxxxxxxx the above-named
depends on whether or not he was tried on a valid complaint in accused, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there,
the first case. The offense in question was committed on May 9, willfully, unlawfully, criminally and feloniously sexually abuse
1932, or subsequent to the date when the Revised Penal Code the herein complaining witness FILIPINA FLORES Y LAZO, 11
became effective. years old, all against her will.”

The third paragraph of the article 344 of the Revised Penal Upon arraignment, accused pleaded not guilty to the charges.
Code, which relates to the prosecution of the crimes of adultery, After trial, the court found him guilty of Statutory Rape and
concubinage, seduction, rape and acts of lasciviousness reads sentenced him to suffer the penalty of death in each case. In
as follows: view of the penalty of death imposed by the trial court, the case
reached before the SC on automatic review.
The offenses of seduction, abduction, rape or acts of
lasciviousness, shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint ISSUE: Whether or not the accused was denied of his
filed by the offended party or her parents, grandparents, or constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of
guardian, nor, in any case, if the offender has been expressly the accusation against him.
pardoned by the above-named persons, as the case may be. RULING:
The Spanish equivalent of the word "filed" is not found in the
Spanish text, which is controlling, as it was the Spanish text of Yes. It is at once apparent, from a reading of the above-quoted
the Revised Penal Code that was approved by the Legislature. complaints, that accused-appellant was denied the
constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of
The first complaint filed against the defendant was signed and the accusation against him. This right has the following
sworn to by the chief of police of Dumaguete. As it was not the objectives:
complaint of the offended party, it was not a valid complaint in 1. To furnish the accused with such a description of the charge
accordance with the law. The judgment of the court was against him as will enable him to make the defense;
therefore void for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, 2. To avail himself of his conviction or acquittal for protection
and the defendant was never in jeopardy. against further prosecution for the same cause;
3. To inform the court of the facts alleged, so that it may decide
It might be observed in this connection that the judgment was whether they are sufficient in law to support a conviction if one
set aside and the case dismissed on the motion of defendant's should be had.
attorney, who subsequently set up the plea of double jeopardy
in the present case. The right cannot be waived for reasons of public policy. Hence,
it is imperative that the complaint or information filed against

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


13
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

the accused be complete to meet its objectives. As such, an Neither can accused-appellant be convicted of acts of
indictment must fully state the elements of the specific offense lasciviousness or of any offense for that matter under our penal
alleged to have been committed. For an accused cannot be laws. It is settled that what characterizes the charge is the actual
convicted of an offense, even if duly proven, unless it is alleged recital of facts in the complaint or information. For every crime
or necessarily included in the complaint or information. is made up of certain acts and intent which must be set forth in
the complaint or information with reasonable particularity of
The court a quo found accused-appellant guilty of Statutory time, place, names (plaintiff and defendant), and circumstances.
Rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended In other words, the complaint must contain a specific allegation
by R. A. No. 7659 (which restored the death penalty for heinous of every fact and circumstance necessary to constitute the
crimes effective December 31, 1993) which provides: crime charged, the accused being presumed to have no
Article 335. When and how rape is committed.--- Rape is independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense.
committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any
of the following circumstances: And even under the provisions of Republic Act No. 7610 (The
1. By using force or intimidation; Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation
2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise and Discrimination Act),accused-appellant cannot be held
unconscious; and liable.
3. When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented.
Section 2 (g) of the Rules and Regulations on the Reporting and
The gravamen of the crime of rape is carnal knowledge or Investigation of Child Abuse Cases, issued pursuant to Section
sexual intercourse between a man and a woman under the 32 of Republic Act No. 7610, defines sexual abuse by inclusion
circumstances enumerated in the penal code. Thus, to sustain a as follows:
conviction, the complaint or information must allege that the
accused had carnal knowledge of or sexual intercourse with the Sexual abuse includes 1) the employment, use, persuasion,
private complainant. In the criminal complaints at bar, enticement, or coercion of a child to engage in, or assist
however, no such allegation was made. another person to engage in sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct or 2) the molestation, 3) prostitution, or
The allegation that accused-appellant did sexually abuse 4) incest with children. (Underscoring supplied)
Filipina does not suffice. In the recent case of People v. Lito
Egan alias Akiao, this Court ruled that although the From this broad, non-exclusive definition, this Court finds that
prosecution has proved that [the therein private complainant] the phrase sexually abuse in the criminal complaints at bar does
Lenie was sexually abused, the evidence proffered is not comply with the requirement that the complaint must
inadequate to establish carnal knowledge. Hence, sexual abuse contain a specific averment of every fact necessary to constitute
cannot be equated with carnal knowledge or sexual the crime. Notably, the phrase sexual abuse is not used under
intercourse. The allegation in the instant criminal complaints R.A. No. 7610 as an elemental fact but as an altogether separate
that accused-appellant sexually abuse[d] the private offense. Section 5 of said law enumerates the punishable acts
complainant cannot thus be read to mean that accused- that must be alleged in the complaint or information to hold an
appellant had carnal knowledge or sexual intercourse with the accused liable, none of which is reflected in the complaints at
private complainant. bar charging accused-appellant.

This Court is not unaware of the rule in case there is a variance


between allegation and proof as etched in Section 4 of Rule 120
of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure which reads: 15. PEOPLE VS VALDESANCHO (1/30/2001)
PRINCIPLE:
SEC. 4. Judgment in case of variance between allegation and
proof.When there is variance between the offense charged in  The Court has many times declared that the date of
the complaint or information and that proved, and the offense commission of the rape is not an essential element of
as charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense the crime. While this is true in the cases at bar, the
proved, the accused shall be convicted of the offense proved dates when the rapes were committed are nonetheless
which is included in the offense charged, or of the offense essential to the accused defense of alibi.
charged which is included in the offense proved.
 In all criminal prosecutions, it is the right of the
The case at bar, however, is not one of variance between accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the
allegation and proof. The recital of facts in the criminal accusation against him. To convict an accused for an
complaints simply does not properly charge rape, sexual abuse offense not alleged in the complaint or information
not being an essential element or ingredient thereof. violates such right.

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


14
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

that no person shall be held liable for a criminal offense without


FACTS: due process of law. It further provides that in all criminal
prosecutions, the accused shall be informed of the nature and
Vicente Valdesancho y Delmo is the husband of Elvie's sister, cause of accusation against him and shall enjoy the right to be
Erlinda. Elvie and her two younger brothers, Erick and Eddie, heard by himself and counsel. Similarly, the Revised Rules of
lived with their brother. In 1994, however, Elvie's mother, Criminal Procedure, as amended, which took effect on 1
Leonida Basco, requested the spouses Valdesancho to let Elvie, December 2000, provides that in all criminal prosecutions, it
Erick and Eddie live in their house. The three were going to is the right of the accused to be informed of the nature and
study in Barangay San Antonio. They resided with the accused cause of the accusation against him. To convict an accused
from 24 June 1994 to June 1995. Elvie was then 14 years old for an offense not alleged in the complaint or information
and in Grade 1. violates such right.

The first incident of rape happened in the early morning of 15 The rationale behind informing the accused in writing of the
August 1994. Elvie was in the house of Valdesancho while charges against him was explained by this Court as early as
Erlinda was then in Manila. Valdesancho succeeded in having 1904 in U.S. v. Karelsen, viz:
carnal knowledge of Elvie, subsequent to Valdesancho's order
to powder his back. Valdesancho warned her not to reveal the "First. To furnish the accused with such a description of the
dastardly act to anybody, otherwise he would kill her and her charge against him as will enable him to make his defense; and
family. All this time, Elvie's brothers were sleeping in the other second, to avail himself of his conviction or acquittal for
room. protection against a further prosecution for the same cause; and
third, to inform the court of the facts alleged, so that it may decide
The second incident of rape happened in the evening of 16 whether they are sufficient in law to support a conviction, if one
August 1994. Elvie was in the house of Valdesancho studying. should be had (United States vs. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542). In
He called Elvie to his room and ordered her to look under the order that this requirement may be satisfied, facts must be
bed for a chick. Valdesancho again had carnal knowledge of her stated, not conclusions of law. Every crime is made up of
against her will. Again, Valdesancho threatened Elvie not to certain acts and intent; these must be set forth in the
report the incident to anybody, otherwise he would kill her and complaint with reasonable particularity of time, place,
her family. Elvie kept her harrowing experience to herself for names (plaintiff and defendant), and circumstances. In
fear that Valdesancho would carry out his threat. short, the complaint must contain a specific allegation of
every fact and circumstances necessary to constitute the
In September 1995, however, when Elvie was already residing crime charged."
with her brother and mother, she reported the rape incidents
to her Tiya Soling. She was fearful that Valdesancho might rape In the cases at bar, the informations in Criminal Case No. S-1964
her again. Tiya Soling reported the rape incidents to Elvie's and Criminal Case No. S-1965 charged the accused with rape
mother who verified the story from Elvie herself. On 15 January committed against Elvie Basco on August 15, 1994 and August
1996, Elvie executed a sworn statement at the Mabitac Police 16, 1994, respectively. All evidence of the prosecution tried to
Station narrating the rape incidents. On 27 March 1996, two prove that the victim was raped by the accused on these dates.
informations were filed against Valdesancho. The accused The accused interposed the defense of alibi. He proved that on
denied the rape charges leveled against him. He contends that these dates he was in the town of Sta. Maria helping a friend
Elvie, with the assistance of her mother Leonida, filed the butcher a pig for the town fiesta. He also proved that on said
instant cases against him because of the serious quarrel dates, the victim, Elvie, was no longer living with them in
between his wife, Erlinda, and Leonida spurred by Leonida's Mabitac, Laguna. She already transferred to Minayutan, Famy,
relationship with a lesbian named Melita Flores. The trial court Laguna where she was in Grade 2. Despite the parties evidence,
upheld the prosecution's story. The court found the accused the trial court convicted the accused for allegedly raping Elvie
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of "rape" and on August 15 and 16, 1993. Without doubt, the accused was not
sentenced him to 2 Reclusion Perpetua. Valdesancho appealed. given any chance to prove where he was on August 15 and 16,
1993. What he did was to prove where he was on August 15 and
ISSUE: Whether or not Valdesancho was denied of due process 16, 1994 for the informations charged him with rapes on those
when he was convicted for rape allegedly committed on August specific dates. He had no opportunity to defend himself on the
15 and 16, 1993, when the information alleged such rapes were rapes allegedly committed on the earlier dates. This is plain
committed on August 15 and 16, 1994. denial of due process.

RULING:

Yes. Article III, Section 14 of the 1987 Constitution mandates

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


15
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

16. PEOPLE VS MENDEZ (G.R. 179962 Information with Leave of Court."The amended information
6/11/2014) reads:

“That on or about the 15th day of April, 2002, at Quezon City,


PRINCIPLE: and within the jurisdiction of [the CTA] the above named
accused, doing business under the name and style of "Weigh
 Amendments that do not charge another offense Less Center"/Mendez Medical Group", with several
different from that charged in the original one; or do branches in Quezon City, Muntinlupa City, Mandaluyong
not alter the prosecution's theory of the case so as to City and Makati City, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully
cause surprise to the accused and affect the form of and feloniously fail to file his income tax return (ITR) with the
defense he has or will assume are considered merely Bureau of Internal Revenue for income earned for the
as formal amendments. taxable year 2001, to the damage and prejudice of the
Government in the estimated amount of P1,089,439.08,
 The jurisprudential test on whether a defendant is exclusive of penalties, surcharges and interest (underscoring
prejudiced by the amendment of an information and boldfacing in the original)”
pertains to the availability of the same defense and
evidence that the accused previously had under the Petitioner failed to file his comment to the motion within the
original information. This test, however, must be read required period; thus, the CTA First Division granted the
together with the characteristic thread of formal prosecution’s motion. He then assails the validity of the
amendments, which is to maintain the nature of the amended information contending that the prosecution’s
crime or the essence of the offense charged. amendment is a substantial amendment prohibited under
Section 14, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
FACTS: Procedure.

Petitioner Dr. Mendez has been operating as a single proprietor ISSUE: Whether or not prosecution’s amendments made after
under the trade names Mendez Body and Face Salon and Spa, the arraignment are substantial in nature and must perforce be
Mendez Body and Face Skin Clinic, Weigh Less Center and denied.
Mendez Weigh Less Center. BIR filed a complaint against
petitioner for failure to file his income tax returns for taxable RULING:
years 2001 to 2003. In his defense, he admitted that he has been
operating as a single proprietor under these trade names in No.
Quezon City, Makati, Dagupan and San Fernando. However, he
countered that he did not file his income tax returns in these There is no precise definition of what constitutes a substantial
places because his business establishments were registered amendment. According to jurisprudence, substantial matters in
only in 2003, thus, were not yet in existence at the time of his the complaint or information consist of the recital of facts
alleged failure to file his income tax return. constituting the offense charged and determinative of the
jurisdiction of the court. Under Section 14 Rule 110 of the
An Information was filed against him with the CTA for violation Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, however, the prosecution
of Section 255 of RA No. 8424 (Tax Reform Act of 1997) which is given the right to amend the information, regardless of the
reads: nature of the amendment, so long as the amendment is sought
before the accused enters his plea, subject to the qualification
“That on or about the 15th day of April, 2002, at Quezon City, under the second paragraph of Section 14.
and within the jurisdiction of [the CTA] the above named
accused, a duly registered taxpayer, and sole proprietor of Once the accused is arraigned and enters his plea, however,
"Weigh Less Center" with principal office at No. 31 Roces Section 14 prohibits the prosecution from seeking a substantial
Avenue, Quezon City, and with several branches in Quezon amendment, particularly mentioning those that may prejudice
City, Makati, San Fernando and Dagupan City, did then and the rights of the accused. One of these rights is the
there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously fail to file his Income constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature
Tax Return (ITR) with the Bureau of Internal Revenue for the and cause of accusation against him, a right which is given life
taxable year 2001, to the damage and prejudice of the during the arraignment of the accused of the charge of against
Government in the estimated amount of P1,089,439.08, him. The theory in law is that since the accused officially begins
exclusive of penalties, surcharges and interest.” to prepare his defense against the accusation on the basis of the
recitals in the information read to him during arraignment,
The accused was arraigned and pleaded not guilty on March 5, then the prosecution must establish its case on the basis of the
2007. On May 4, 2007, the prosecution filed a "Motion to Amend same information.

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


16
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

filed precisely for the income earned for the preceding taxable
Amendments that do not charge another offense different from year.
that charged in the original one; or do not alter the
prosecution's theory of the case so as to cause surprise to the II. The addition of the phrase "doing business
accused and affect the form of defense he has or will assume are under the name and style of Mendez Medical
considered merely as formal amendments. Group and the change and/or addition of the
branches of petitioner’s operation
In the present case, the amendments sought by the prosecution Under the National Internal Revenue Code, a resident citizen
pertains to (i) the alleged change in the date in the commission who is engaged in the practice of a profession within the
of the crime from 2001 to 2002; (ii) the addition of the phrase Philippines is obligated to file in duplicate an income tax return
"doing business under the name and style of Mendez Medical on his income from all sources, regardless of the amount of
Group;" (iii) the change and/or addition of the branches of his gross income.
petitioner’s operation; and (iv) the addition of the phrase "for
income earned." We cannot see how these amendments would Since the petitioner operates as a sole proprietor from taxable
adversely affect any substantial right of the petitioner as years 2001 to 2003, the petitioner should have filed a
accused. consolidated return in his principal place of business,
regardless of the number and location of his other branches.
I. The "change" in the date from 2001 to 2002 Consequently, we cannot but agree with the CTA that the
and the addition of the phrase "for income change and/or addition of the branches of the petitioner’s
earned" operation in the information does not constitute substantial
At the outset we note that the actual year of the commission of amendment because it does not change the prosecution’s
the offense has escaped both the petitioner and prosecution. In theory that the petitioner failed to file his income tax return.
its Motion to Amend the Information, the prosecution
mistakenly stated that the information it originally filed alleged As to when the rights of an accused are prejudiced by an
the commission of the offense as "on or about the 15th day of amendment made after he had pleaded to the original
April, 2001" – even if the record is clear that that the actual year information, Montenegro ruled that prejudice exists when
of commission alleged is 2002. The petitioner makes a similar a defense under the original information would no longer
erroneous allegation in its petition before the Court. be available after the amendment is made, and when any
evidence the accused might have, would be inapplicable to
Interestingly, in its August 13, 2007 resolution, denying the the Information as amended.
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, the CTA implicitly Here, the prosecution’s theory of the case, i.e., that petitioner
ruled that there was in fact no amendment of the date in the failed to file his income tax return for the taxable year 2001 did
information by correctly citing what the original information not change. The prosecution’s cause for filing an information
alleges. This, notwithstanding, the petitioner still baselessly remained the same as the cause in the original and in the
belaboured the point in its present petition by citing the amended information. For emphasis, the prosecution’s
erroneous content of the prosecution’s motion to amend evidence during the preliminary investigation of the case shows
instead of the original information itself. This kind of legal that petitioner did not file his income tax return in his place of
advocacy obviously added nothing but confusion to what is legal residence or principal place of business in Quezon City or
otherwise a simple case and another docket to the High Court’s with the Commissioner. In short, the amendment sought did not
overwhelming caseload. alter the crime charged.

That the actual date of the commission of the offense pertains At first, a change in the location of branches alleged in the
to the year 2002 is only consistent with the allegation in the information may appear to deprive the petitioner of his defense
information on the taxable year it covers, i.e., for the taxable in the original information, i.e., the petitioner’s branches in
year 2001. Since the information alleges that petitioner failed Dagupan and San Fernando were registered only in 2003 and
to file his income tax return for the taxable year 2001, then the were therefore "in existent" in 2001. However, this is not the
offense could only possibly be committed when petitioner kind of defense contemplated under the Rules of Criminal
failed to file his income tax return before the due date of filing, Procedure, and broadly under the due process of law.
which is on April of the succeeding year, 2002. Accordingly, the
addition of the phrase "for the income earned" before the Contrary to the petitioner’s claim, the opportunity given to the
phrase "for the taxable year 2001" cannot but be a mere formal accused to present his defense evidence during the preliminary
amendment since the added phrase merely states with investigation is not exhaustive. In the same manner that the
additional precision something that is already contained in the complainant’s evidence during preliminary investigation is
original information, i.e., the income tax return is required to be only required to establish the minimal evidentiary threshold of
probable cause, the evidence that the respondent may present

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


17
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

during trial is not limited to what he had presented during the offense different or distinct from the charge of
preliminary investigation, so long as the evidence for both qualified theft (of a motor vehicle) contained in the
parties supports or negates the elements of the offense charged. information. Neither do they tend to correct any defect
in the jurisdiction of the trial court over the subject-
To be sure, the jurisprudential test on whether a defendant is matter of the case. They do not alter the prosecution's
prejudiced by the amendment of an information pertains to the theory of the case nor possibly prejudice the form of
availability of the same defense and evidence that the accused defense the accused has or will assume.
previously had under the original information. This test,
however, must be read together with the characteristic thread
of formal amendments, which is to maintain the nature of the FACTS:
crime or the essence of the offense charged.
Petitioner Almeda was charged with the crime of qualified theft
In the present case, this thread remained consistently under the in the court presided by respondent Judge Villaluz and was
amended information, alleging the petitioner’s failure to file his recommended P15,000 bond for his provisional release to be
return and consequently to pay the correct amount of taxes. posted entirely in cash. In the scheduled hearing, he asked the
Accordingly, the petitioner could not have been surprised at all. court toto allow him to post a surety bond in lieu of the cash
bond. This request was denied, and so was an oral motion for
We also reject for lack of merit petitioner’s claim that the reconsideration, on the ground that the amended information
inclusion of the phrase "doing business under the name and imputed habitual delinquency and recidivism on the part of
style of Mendez Medical Group" after his preliminary Almeda.
investigation and arraignment deprives him of the right to
question the existence of this "entity."
At the same hearing, the respondent city fiscal reiterated his
oral motion for amendment of the information so as to
The petitioner however has not drawn our attention to any of
include allegations of recidivism and habitual delinquency.
his related operations that actually possesses its own juridical
Almeda objected, arguing that (a) such an amendment was
personality. In the original information, petitioner is described
premature since no copies of prior conviction could yet be
as "sole proprietor of Weigh Less Center." A sole proprietorship
presented in court, (b) the motion to amend should have been
is a form of business organization conducted for profit by a
made in writing in order to enable him to object formally, and
single individual, and requires the proprietor or owner thereof,
(c) the proposed amendment would place him in double
like the petitioner-accused, to secure licenses and permits,
jeopardy considering that he had already pleaded not guilty to
register the business name, and pay taxes to the national
the information. The court nevertheless granted the
government without acquiring juridical or legal personality of
respondent fiscal's motion in open court. An oral motion for
its own.
reconsideration was denied. The petitioner forthwith moved
for the dismissal of the charge on the ground of double
In the amended information, the prosecution additionally
jeopardy, but this motion and a motion for reconsideration
alleged that petitioner is "doing business under the name and
were denied in open court.
style of ‘Weigh Less Center’/Mendez Medical Group.’" Given the
nature of a sole proprietorship, the addition of the phrase
"doing business under the name and style" is merely ISSUE: Whether OR NOT the amendment to the information,
descriptive of the nature of the business organization after a plea of not guilty thereto, was properly allowed in both
established by the petitioner as a way to carry out the practice substance and procedure.
of his profession. As a phrase descriptive of a sole
proprietorship, the petitioner cannot feign ignorance of the HELD:
"entity" "Mendez Medical Group" because this entity is nothing
more than the shadow of its business owner - petitioner YES. The amendment of the information to include allegations
himself. of habitual delinquency and recidivism, after a previous plea
thereto by the accused, is valid and in no way violates his
right to be fully apprised before trial of the charges against
him.
17. ALMEDA VS VILLALUZ (160 PHIL 750)
Under section 13 of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, the trial court
PRINCIPLE:
has discretion to allow amendments to the information on all
 The additional allegations of habitual delinquency and matters of form after the defendant has pleaded and during the
recidivism do not have the effect of charging another trial when the same can be done without prejudice to the rights

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


18
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

of the defendant. What are prohibited at this stage of the No. The court did not abuse its discretion.
proceedings are amendments in substance. And the substantial
matter in a complaint or information is the recital of facts The amendment to the information was merely a matter of
constituting the offense charged and determinative of the form. It neither affects nor alters the nature of the crime
jurisdiction of the court. All other matters are merely of form. because, whether it be Bruno or Cecilio who inflicted the mortal
wound, the crime would be the same. Neither does it affect the
The additional allegations of habitual delinquency and extent of the liability of the appellants because, it being alleged
recidivism do not have the effect of charging another in the information that both accused conspired and helped each
offense different or distinct from the charge of qualified other to commit the crime, they would be liable to the same
theft (of a motor vehicle) contained in the information. extent, whoever inflicted the wound which resulted in the death
Neither do they tend to correct any defect in the of the deceased. Therefore, it is purely an amendment of form
jurisdiction of the trial court over the subject-matter of the which does not substantially alter the information nor affect the
case. The said new allegations relate only to the range of the rights of the accused.
penalty that the court might impose in the event of conviction.
They do not alter the prosecution's theory of the case nor
possibly prejudice the form of defense the accused has or
will assume. Consequently, in authorizing the amendments, 19. US VS DELA CRUZ (3 PHIL 657)
the respondent judge acted with due consideration of the PRINCIPLE:
petitioner's rights and did not abuse his discretion.
 The amendment to the complaint made before the
presentation of the evidence for the defense has not
prejudiced, nor could it have prejudiced, any essential
18. AREVALO VS NEPOMUCENO (63 PHIL rights of the defendants as well because it did not
657) affect the essence of the crime charged, but merely an
PRINCIPLE: accidental detail of the same, as because it did not
deprive the accused of an opportunity to produce
 An amendment of form does not substantially alter the evidence for their defense.
information nor affect the rights of the accused
FACTS:
FACTS: The defendants were prosecuted on an information for the
crime of brigandage. After the prosecution rested but before the
In the court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, an information for presentation of the evidence of the defense, the trial court
the crime of murder was filed against Bruno Arevalo and Cecilio permitted the prosecuting officer to amend the information
Arevalo, alleging that Bruno was armed with a knife and Cecilio eliminating the words "led by one Silverio" and substituting
with a revolver. After the accused had pleaded not guilty upon therefor the words "under the command of Luciano San
arraignment, and upon proceeding with the trial of the case on Miguel."
the day fixed therefor, a witness was presented who testified
that it was Bruno who carried the revolver and Cecilio, the The defendants were sentenced in the Court of First Instance to
knife. Alleging that according to the information it was Bruno the penalty of twenty years’ imprisonment for the crime of
who carried the knife and Cecilio the revolver, the attorney for brigandage, punished by section 1 of Act No. 518 of the
the defense filed an objection to said testimony. The court Commission. The merits of the case demonstrate sufficiently
stated that if the fiscal did not amend the information, it would the guilt of the said defendants and justify the sentence for the
sustain the objection. The fiscal filed an amended information aforementioned crime.
alleging that it was Bruno who carried the revolver and Cecilio
the knife. The court admitted said amendment. ISSUE: Whether or not the amendment was valid.
HELD:
ISSUE: Whether or not the resolution so rendered be declared
null and void on the ground that the court exceeded its Yes. It is valid.
jurisdiction and abused its discretion in permitting the The amendment to the complaint made before the presentation
amendment to the information. of the evidence for the defense has not prejudiced, nor could it
have prejudiced, any essential rights of the defendants as well
because it did not affect the essence of the crime charged, but
merely an accidental detail of the same, as because it did not
HELD: deprive the accused of an opportunity to produce evidence for

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


19
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

their defense, if they had desired, in relation to the said CORBITO at the corner of Osmeña Highway (formerly South
amendment; its allowance was not, therefore, a fatal error, as Super Highway) and Zobel Roxas Street in Manila, and later
the defense contends, relying upon section 10 of General brought them to Indang, Cavite” Meanwhile, Villanueva filed a
Orders, No. 58. motion for reinvestigation asserting that he was mistakenly
identified as a participant in the double murder. This was
granted. A Manifestation and Motion to Admit Amended
20. VEGA VS PANIS Information[13] dated 17 September 2001 was filed by the
prosecution. The Amended Information ---
FACTS: (1) discharged accused Jimmy L. Lopez, Alex B. Diloy,
William L. Lopez and Glen Dumlao as they are now
Felicitas Vargas filed a complaint for Attempted Rape against witnesses for the State;
Leopoldo Lazo with the CFI of Zambales. After the preliminary (2) substituted SPO3 Allan Villanueva for P/Insp.
investigation, the judge found that only the crime of Acts of Danilo Villanueva; and
Lasciviousness has been proven to have been committed. (3) charged as additional accused P/Supt. Michael
Accordingly, an information charging Lazo with the crime of Ray Aquino, P/Supt. Cezar Mancao II and P/Sr. Supt.
Acts of Lasciviousness was filed. Upon arraignment, Lazo Teofilo Viña.
pleaded ‘Not Guilty.’ However, the prosecutor filed a motion to
admit an Amended Information to include an allegation that the ISSUE: The fundamental issue that must be resolved concerns
offense was committed with the aggravating circumstances of the duty of a trial court judge when confronted with a motion
“dwelling” and “night time,” which was accepted by the court. to admit amended information excluding some of the accused
named in the original information for utilization as witnesses
ISSUE: WON the court had jurisdiction to allow the amendment for the State.
of the original information to Acts of Lasciviousness.
RULING:

RULING: The key lies in the correct interpretation of two pertinent


provisions of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, i.e.,
No. Under Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, an Section 14 of Rule 110 on amendment of information and
information may be amended even after arraignment at the Section 17 of Rule 119 on the discharge of an accused as state
sound discretion of the court and when the same can be done witness.
without prejudice to the rights of the accused. If it appears at Section 14, Rule 110 states
any time before judgment that a mistake has been made in
charging the proper offense, the court may dismiss the original Section 14. Amendment or substitution. – A complaint or
complaint or information and order the filing of a new one information may be amended, in form or in substance, without
charging the proper offense, provided the defendant would not leave of court, at any time before the accused enters his plea.
be placed thereby in double jeopardy, and may also require the After the plea and during the trial, a formal amendment may
witnesses to give bail for their appearance at the trial. only be made with leave of court and when it can be done
without causing prejudice to the rights of the accused.

21. PEOPLE VS SOBERANO (472 SCRA 125) However, any amendment before plea, which downgrades the
nature of the offense charged in or excludes any accused from
FACTS: the complaint or information, can be made only upon motion by
the prosecutor, with notice to the offended party and with leave
The prominent Public relations practitioner, Salvador Dacer, of court. The court shall state its reasons in resolving the motion
together with his driver was abducted along Zobel Roxas St. and copies of its order shall be furnished all parties, especially
Manila. They were killed by strangulation and their charred the offended party.
remains were later found in Cavite.An information was filed by
the prosecutors charging a number of accused some of whom There can be no quarrel as to the fact that what is involved here
are public officers of double murder. The prosecution filed a is primary an amendment of an information to exclude some
motion to admit amended information which was granted and accused and that the same is made before plea. Thus, at the
admitted by the trial court.The Amended information read:xxx very least, Section 14, Rule 110 is applicable which means that
“,abduct SALVADOR (Bubby) DACER and EMMANUEL the amendment should be made only upon motion by the

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


20
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

prosecutor, with notice to the offended party and with leave of Here, Claudio Teehankee, Jr. was originally charged for the
court. What seems to complicate the situation is that the crime of frustrated murder for shooting Hultman who was
exclusion of the accused is specifically sought for the purpose comatosed some time. In the course of the trial, Hultman died.
of discharging them as witnesses for the State. The The prosecution sought to change the information from
consequential question is, should the requirements for frustrated murder to consummated murder. Teehankee Jr.
discharge of an accused as state witness as set forth in Section questioned the new charge for lack of preliminary investigation
17, Rule 119 be made as additional requirements (i.e., Section thereon .
14, Rule 110 and Section 17, Rule 119) or should only one
provision apply as ruled by the trial court and the Court of There are three (3) questions to be answered here:
Appeals (i.e., Section 14, Rule 110 or Section 17, Rule 119)?
ISSUE #1: Was there an amend ment of the information or
An amendment of the information made before plea which substitut ion when the information was changed from
excludes some or one of the accused must be made only upon frustrated murder to consummated murder?
motion by the prosecutor, with notice to the offended party and
with leave of court in compliance with Section 14, Rule 110. RULING: There is an amendment. “There is an identity of
Section 14, Rule 110 does not qualify the grounds for the offenses charged in both the original and the amended
exclusion of the accused. Thus, said provision applies in equal information [murder pa rin!]. What is involved here is not a
force when the exclusion is sought on the usual ground of lack variance of the nature of different offenses charge, but only a
of probable cause, or when it is for utilization of the accused as change in the stage of execution of the same offense from
state witness, as in this case, or on some other ground. frustrated to consummated murder. This being the case, we
At this level, the procedural requirements of Section 17, Rule hold that an amendment of the original information will suffice
119 on the need for the prosecution to present evidence and the and, consequent thereto, the filing of the amended information
sworn statement of each state witness at a hearing in support for murder is proper.”
of the discharge do not yet come into play. This is because, as
correctly pointed out by the Court of Appeals, the ISSUE #2: What kind of amendment? Formal or substantial?
determination of who should be criminally charged in court is
essentially an executive function, not a judicial one.[29] The RULING: Formal. “An objective appraisal of the amended
prosecution of crimes appertains to the executive department information for murder filed against herein petitioner will
of government whose principal power and responsibility is to readily show that the nature of the offense originally charged
see that our laws are faithfully executed. A necessary was not actually changed. Instead, an additional allegation, that
component of this power to execute our laws is the right to is, the supervening fact of the death of the victim was merely
prosecute their violators. The right to prosecute vests the supplied to aid the trial court in determining the proper penalty
prosecutor with a wide range of discretion – the discretion of for the crime. That the accused committed a felonious act with
whether, what and whom to charge, the exercise of which intent to kill the victim continues to be the prosecution's theory.
depends on a smorgasbord of factors which are best There is no question that whatever defense herein petitioner
appreciated by prosecutors.[30] By virtue of the trial court may adduce under the original information for frustrated
having granted the prosecution’s motion for reinvestigation, murder equally applies to the amended information for
the former is deemed to have deferred to the authority of the murder.” So halimbawa sabihin ng prosecutor: “You shot
prosecutorial arm of the Government.[31] Having brought the Hultman who almost died.” Teehankee Jr.:“W ala man ako du’n
case back to the drawing board, the prosecution is thus ba! I was at home asleep!” Alibi ang defense niya ba. Now,
equipped with discretion -- wide and far reaching – regarding namatay si Hultman. Ano man ang depensa mo? Mao man
the disposition thereof. gihapon: “Wala man ako du’n!” The accused is not prejudiced
Thus, as in almost all things, the prosecution’s discretion is not since the same defense is still available to him.
boundless or infinite. The prosecution must satisfy for itself
that an accused excluded from the information for purposes of ISSUE #3: Is there a need of a preliminary investigation on the
utilizing him as state witness is qualified therefor. new charge?

RULING: No need because you have not changed the crime. If


22. TEHANKEE VS MADAYAG (3/6/1992) you change the crime or when there is substitution, kailangan
ng preliminary investigation. Since it is only a formal
FACTS: amendment, preliminary investigation is not necessary. “The
amended information could not conceivably have come as a

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


21
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

surprise to petitioner for the simple and obvious reason that it ordering the reinstatement of the original informations, and
charges essentially the same offense as that charged under the setting the arraignment of the accused therein for February 8,
original information. Furthermore, as we have heretofore held, 1994. On said date, however, the arraignment was suspended
if the crime originally charged is related to the amended charge and, in the meanwhile, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari,
such that an inquiry into one would elicit substantially the same prohibition and mandamus with respondent Court of Appeals,
facts that an inquiry into the other would reveal, a new assailing the order dated January 24, 1994 issued by Judge
preliminary investigation is not necessary.” Pornillos which denied petitioners’ motion to quash filed for
the new informations. As earlier stated, respondent court
A substantial amendment consists of the recital of facts dismissed the petition in its questioned resolution of February
constituting the offense charged and determinative of the 18, 1994, hence this petition.
jurisdiction of the court. All other matters are merely of form.
ISSUE: Whether the ex parte motion to withdraw the original
Thus, the following have been held to be merely formal
informations is null and void on the ground that there was no
amendments, viz: (1) new allegations which relate only to the
notice and hearing as required by Sections 4, 5 and 6, Rule 15
range of the penalty that the court might impose in the event of
of the Rules of Court.
conviction; (2) an amendment which does not charge another
offense different or distinct from that charged in the original RULING:
one; (3) additional allegations which do not alter the
No, considering that in the original cases before Branch 14 of
prosecution's theory of the case so as to cause surprise to the
the trial court petitioners had not yet been placed in jeopardy,
accused and affect the form of defense he has or will assume;
and the ex parte motion to withdraw was filed and granted
and (4) an amendment which does not adversely affect any
before they could be arraigned, there would be no imperative
substantial right of the accused, such as his right to invoke
need for notice and hearing thereof. In actuality, the real
prescription.
grievance of herein accused is not the dismissal of the original
three informations but the filing of four new informations,
three of which charge graver offenses and the fourth, an
additional offense. Had these new informations not been filed,
23. GALVEZ VS CA (10/24/1994)
there would obviously have been no cause for the instant
petition. Accordingly, their complaint about the supposed
FACTS: procedural lapses involved in the motion to dismiss filed and
granted in Criminal Cases Nos. 3642-M-93 to 3644-M-93 does
On November 12, 1993, petitioners Honorato Galvez, the
not impress us as a candid presentation of their real position.
incumbent Mayor of San Ildefonso, Bulacan, and one Godofredo
Petitioner’s contention that the dismissal of the original
Diego were charged in three separate informations with
informations and the consequent filing of the new ones
homicide and two counts of frustrated homicide for allegedly
substantially affected their right to bail is too strained and
shooting to death Alvin Calma Vinculado and seriously
tenuous an argument. They would want to ignore the fact that
wounding Levi Calma Vinculado and Miguel Reyes Vinculado,
had the original informations been amended so as to charge the
Jr. On December 15, 1993, before petitioners could be
capital offense of murder, they still stood to likewise be
arraigned, respondent prosecutor filed an Ex Parte Motion to
deprived of their right to bail once it was shown that the
Withdraw Informations of the original informations. This
evidence of guilt is strong. Petitioners could not be better off
motion was granted by Judge Villajuan also on December 15,
with amended informations than with the subsequent ones. It
1993 and the cases were considered withdrawn from the
really made no difference considering that where a capital
docket of the court. On the same day, Prosecutor Villa-Ignacio
offense is charged and the evidence of guilt is strong, bail
filed four new informations against herein petitioners for
becomes a matter of discretion under either an amended or a
murder, two counts of frustrated murder, and violation of
new information. Contrary to petitioners’ submission, the
Presidential Decree No. 1866 for illegal possession of firearms.
absence of notice and hearing does not divest a trial court of
Thereafter, a Motion to Quash the new informations for lack of
authority to pass on the merits of the motion. It has been held
jurisdiction was filed by petitioners before Judge Pornillos on
that—“The order of the court granting the motion to dismiss
January 3, 1994. At the court session set for the arraignment of
despite absence of a notice of hearing, or proof of service
petitioners on January 24, 1994, Judge Pornillos issued an order
thereof, is merely an irregularity in the proceedings. It cannot
denying the motion to quash. In the meantime, and prior to the
deprive a competent court of jurisdiction over the case. The
arraignment of herein petitioners before Judge Pornillos, an
court still retains its authority to pass on the merits of the
order was issued on January 20, 1994 by Judge Villajuan
motion. The remedy of the aggrieved party in such cases is
granting the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners,

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


22
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

either to have the order set aside or the irregularity otherwise The two pawn tickets were wholly separate and distinct
cured by the court which dismissed the complaint or to appeal documents. They had no relation to each other as members of a
from the dismissal and not certiorari.” series of instruments, so intimately related, that the falsification
of one individual of the series would be, in effect, a falsification
of the entire series. The crime of falsification of a private
24. US VS INFANTE (36 PHIL 146) document was complete and consummated when, with intent
PRINCIPLE: to prejudice a third person, the first pawn ticket was actually
falsified; and a wholly separate and distinct crime was initiated
and consummated when the second ticket was falsified. That
 The two pawn tickets were wholly separate and
both documents may have been falsified to be used together in
distinct documents. They had no relation to each other the perpetration of an embezzlement in no wise affects the case,
as members of a series of instruments, so intimately as under the definition of the crime of falsification of private
related, that the falsification of one individual of the documents set out in article 304 of the Penal Code, the crime is
series would be, in effect, a falsification of the entire consummated and complete at the moment when such a
series. The crime of falsification of a private document document is actually falsified, to the prejudice of, or with intent
was complete and consummated when, with intent to to prejudice a third person, it matters not to what use the
document may be put thereafter, as will readily be seen from
prejudice a third person, the first pawn ticket was
the express terms of that article, which are as follows:
actually falsified; and a wholly separate and distinct
crime was initiated and consummated when the
Any person who, to the damage of another, or with the intent to
second ticket was falsified cause such damage, shall in any private document commit any
FACTS: of the acts of falsification enumerated in article three hundred
shall suffer the penalty of presidio correccional in its minimum
Appellants in this case were convicted in the former case of the and medium degrees and be fined in a sum not less than six
crime of falsification of a private document, in that they falsified hundred and twenty-five and not more than six thousand two
a pawn ticket issued by the Monte de Piedad, to the prejudice of hundred and fifty pesetas.
and with intent to prejudice the complaining witness. The
evidence disclosed that the accused changed the description of We find no error in the proceedings had in the court below
the pawned article as it appeared on the face of the pawn ticket prejudicial to the rights of the accused, and the judgment
convicting and sentencing him should, therefore, be affirmed,
and substituted therefor another article of greatly superior
with costs.
value, and that thereafter the falsified ticket was itself pawned
in the pawnshop of the complaining witness for an amount
largely in excess of the true value of the article pawned in
the Monte de Piedad, for which the original pawn ticket was 25. VILLAROSA VS MAGALLANES
issued. (4/29/2003)
PRINCIPLE:
Evidence discloses that this pawn ticket was falsified by these
 As provided in Section 15, Rule 110 of the Rules on
accused at or about the same time when they falsified the pawn
Criminal Procedure, 15 it is a fundamental
ticket for the falsification of which they were convicted at the
principle that the criminal action shall be
former trial;
instituted and tried in the court of the municipality
ISSUE: or province where the offense was committed or
where any of its essential ingredients took place.
CAN THE ACCUSED BE CHARGED IN A SEPARATE  it is not the intent of our lawmakers that all perjury
INFORMATIONS ALTHOUGH IT WAS SHOWN THAT THE TWO cases committed in relation to an election offense
PAWN TICKETS WERE FALSIFIED AT OR ABOUT THE SAME must be filed in Manila — the seat of the Law
TIME? Department of COMELEC, which under the COMELEC
Rules of Procedure conducts preliminary
RULING: investigations in election offenses. 19 Surely, such
situation will congest the dockets of courts in Manila.
YES.
It will also be physically and financially burdensome

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


23
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

on litigants nationwide, who must travel from remote instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or
areas just to pursue the course of justice in Manila. province where the offense was committed or where any of
This scenario will inevitably discourage the its essential ingredients took place. In this case, the disputed
prosecution of offenses of this nature — a situation affidavit containing the alleged false statements was filed by
which, to our mind, is not only unlikely, but an absurd private respondents with the Office of the Election Officer in
one, farthest from the imagination of our legislators. Bacolod City, where a complaint for violation of the Omnibus
FACTS: Election Code was lodged against them.

petitioner Emilio Villarosa and private respondent Jude The transmission of the purported untruthful affidavit to the
Thaddeus Sayson were candidates for barangay captain, with Law Department of COMELEC in Manila for purposes of
private respondent emerging the victor. preliminary investigation did not make the offense triable in
the Manila courts. We are in full accord with the reasoning of
one Victoria S. Delfin filed a verified complaint against
the OSG that it was in the Office of the Election Officer in
private respondents with the Office of the Election Officer
Bacolod City where the counter-affidavits were executed and
in Bacolod City, for violation of the Omnibus Election Code.
originally submitted by private respondents; hence, it was in
The complaint alleged that private respondents posted
that place that the operative acts constituting the crime of
campaign streamers prior to the start of the campaign period.
perjury, if proven, were committed.
the counter-affidavits of private respondents were forwarded
to the Law Department of the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC), in Manila, Private respondent was also found to Lastly, to hold that the Manila court has jurisdiction over the
have made untruthful statements upon a material matter in a present case would open the floodgates to a judicial anarchy. To
counter-affidavit submitted before the COMELEC, duly our mind, it is not the intent of our lawmakers that all perjury
subscribed and sworn to by him before Asst. City Prosecutor cases committed in relation to an election offense must be filed
Cesar L. Beloria of the Bacolod City Prosecution Office, a in Manila — the seat of the Law Department of COMELEC, which
competent person authorized to administer oath, which under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure conducts preliminary
counter-affidavit is required by law in the preliminary investigations in election offenses. 19 Surely, such situation will
investigation of said case, which found the existence of congest the dockets of courts in Manila. It will also be physically
probable cause for the indictment of private respondents. The and financially burdensome on litigants nationwide, who must
counter-affidavits filed by private respondents with the travel from remote areas just to pursue the course of justice in
COMELEC served as the basis for petitioner to file a complaint Manila. This scenario will inevitably discourage the prosecution
for perjury against private respondents with the Office of the of offenses of this nature — a situation which, to our mind, is
City Prosecutor of Bacolod City. not only unlikely, but an absurd one, farthest from the
imagination of our legislators.
private respondents filed a motion to quash the informations
on the ground that exclusive jurisdiction lies with the proper In sum, jurisdiction over the crime of perjury in the instant case
court in Manila since the counter-affidavits were forwarded to is vested in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Bacolod City,
the Law Department of the COMELEC in Manila. where the affidavit constituting false evidence was filed.
Accordingly, respondent judge erred and committed grave
ISSUE: WHERE should the case be filed? abuse of discretion in holding otherwise.

RULING:

In Bacolod City 26. PEOPLE VS YABUT (11/29/1977)

We agree with the petitioner and the OSG that the perjury case “ venue or jurisdiction in a case of estafa for postdating or
must be filed in Bacolod where the case for violation of the issuing a check without insufficient funds”
Omnibus Election Code was pending. As provided in Section
15, Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, 15 it is a PRINCIPLE: . Section 14(a), Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of
fundamental principle that the criminal action shall be Court provides: "In all criminal prosecutions the action shall be

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


24
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

instituted and tried in the Court of the municipality or province RULING:


wherein the offense was committed or any one of the essential
ingredients thereof took place." The theory is that a person NO
indicted with a transitory offense may be validly tried in any
Estafa by postdating or issuing a bad check under Art. 315, par.
jurisdiction where the offense was in part
2 (d) of the Revised Penal Code may be a transitory or
committed. 3 However, if all the acts material and essential
continuing offense. 1 Its basic elements of deceit and
to the crime and requisite of its consummation occurred in
damage 2 may independently arise in separate places. In the
one municipality or province, the court of that municipality
event of such occurrence, the institution of the criminal action
or province has the sole jurisdiction to try the case.
in either place is legally allowed. Section 14(a), Rule 110 of the
The delivery of the instrument is the final act essential to Revised Rules of Court provides: "In all criminal prosecutions
its consummation as an obligation the action shall be instituted and tried in the Court of the
municipality or province wherein the offense was committed
FACTS: or any one of the essential ingredients thereof took place." The
theory is that a person indicted with a transitory offense may
That during the period from February 22, to February 26, 1975, be validly tried in any jurisdiction where the offense was in part
in the Municipality of Malolos, Province of Bulcan, Philippines, committed. 3 However, if all the acts material and essential to
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said the crime and requisite of its consummation occurred in one
accused Cecilia Que Yabut, as treasurer of the Yabut Transit municipality or province, the court of that municipality or
Line, by means of false pretenses and pretending to have province has the sole jurisdiction to try the case.
sufficient funds in the Merchants Banking Corporation, located
and doing business in Caloocan City, prepared issued and . While the subject checks were written, signed, or dated in
make out Check Nos. CB-19035 B, CB-190396 and CB-190397, Caloocan City, they were not completely made or drawn
dated February 22, 1975, February 24, 1975 and February 26, there, but in Malolos, Bulacan, where they were uttered
1975, in the total sum of P6,568.94, drawn against the and delivered. That is the place of business and residence
Merchants Banking Corporation, payable to Freeway Tires of the payee. The place where the bills were written,
Supply, owned and operated by Alicia P. Andan, in payment of signed, or dated does not necessarily fix or determine the
articles and merchandise delivered to and received by said place where they were executed. What is of decisive
accused, gave and delivered the said checks to the said importance is the delivery thereof. The delivery of the
Freeway Tires Supply, the said accused Cecilia Que Yabut well instrument is the final act essential to its consummation as
knowing that at the time there was no or insufficient funds in an obligation. 4 An undelivered bill or note is inoperative. Until
the said Merchants Banking Corporation, and upon delivery, the contract is revocable. 5 And the issuance as well as
presentation of the said checks to the bank, the checks were the delivery of the check must be to a person who takes it as
dishonored and inspite of repeated demands by the owner of a holder, which means "(t)he payee or indorsee of a bill or note,
the Freeway Tires Supply to deposit the necessary funds to who is in possession of it, or the bearer thereof." 6 Delivery of
cover the checks within the reglementary period enjoined by the check signifies transfer of possession, whether actual or
law, failed and refused to do so, to the damage and prejudice of constructive, from one person to another with intent to transfer
Alicia P. Andan, owner and operator of the Freeway Tires title thereto. 7 Thus, the penalizing clause of the provision of
Supply, in the total amount of P6,568.94. Art. 315, par. 2 (d) states: "By postdating a check, or issuing a
check in payment of an obligation when the offender had no
Instead of entering a plea, respondent Cecilia Que Yabut filed a funds in the bank, or his funds deposited therein were not
motion to quash ON THE GROUND THAT the venue was sufficient to cover the amount of the check." Clearly, therefore,
improperly laid in Malolos, Bulacan, because the postdated the element of deceit thru the issuance and delivery of the
checks were issued and delivered to, and received by, the worthless checks to the complainant took place in Malolos,
complainant in the City of Caloocan, where she (respondent Bulcan, conferring upon a court in that locality jurisdiction to
Que Yabut) holds office. try the case.

ISSUE:WHETHER VENUE IS IMPROPERLY LAID The venue of the offense lies at the place where the check was
executed and delivered to the payee. 16 Since in the instant case

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


25
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

it was in Malolos, Bulacan where the checks were uttered and HELD:
delivered to complaint Andan, at which place, her business and
Estafa by postdating or issuing a bad check may be a tran
residence were also located, the criminal prosecution of estafa
sitory or
may be lodged therein.17 As earlier pointed out, the giving of the continuing offense. Its basic elements of deceit and dama
checks by the two private respondents in Caloocan City to ge may arise independently in separate places. In this case, it
Modesto Yambo cannot be treated as valid delivery of the did and jurisdiction may be conferred in any of the two places
checks, because Yambo is a mere "messenger" or "part-time wherein the two elements arose.
employee" and not an agent of complaint Alicia P. Andan.
For while the subject check was issued in Bulacan, it
wasn't completely
drawn thereat, but in Pampanga. What is of decisive i
mportance is the delivery thereof. The delivery of the
instrument is the final act essential to
27. PEOPLE VS GROSPE (1/20/1988) its consummation as an obligation. For although the ch
PRINCIPLE: eck was received
 What is of decisive importance is the delivery by the SMC Supervisor in Bulacan, that was not deliv
thereof. The delivery of the instrument is the final act ery in the contemplation of law. The rule is that the issuancve
essential to its consummation as an obligation. as well as the delivery of the check must be to a person who
FACTS: takes it as a holder, which means
the payee or indorser of a bill or note, who is in possessi
Manuel Parulan is an authorized dealer of San Mig Corp in on of it, or the
Bulacan. He issued 2checks in connection with beer purchases bearer thereof. The said representative had to forward th
and which he delivered to the Sales supervisor (Mr. Cornelio) e check TO the regional office of San Mig in Pampanga. Deceit
of San Mig. The checks were dishonored by Planters Dev’t Bank took place in Pampanga where the check was legally issued and
(drawee) in Bulacan. delivered.

FIRST ISSUANCE:
III. RULE 111 (PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTIONS)
ISSUED AT: Santa Maria, Bulacan Branch
28. HUN HYUNG PARK VS EUNG WON CHOI
SUM INVVOLVED: of P86,071.20 (2/12/2007)
Principle:
DELIVERED AND RECEIVED BY: the SMC Regional Office at  For, in case of acquittal, the accused may still be adju
San Fernando, Pampanga
dged civilly liable. The extinction of the penal action
does not carry with it the extinction of the civil action
WHERE DISHONORED: the Bank of the Philippine Islands
(BPI), San Fernando Branch where (a) the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt
as only preponderance of evidence is required; (b) t
SECOND ISSUANCE: he court declares that the liability of the accused is o
nly civil; and (c) the civil liability of the accused does
ISSUED AT: Santa Maria, Bulacan Branch
not arise from or is not based upon the crime of whic
h the accused was acquitted.
SUM INVOLVED: of P11,918.80

DELIVERED AND RECEIVED BY: SMC Regional Office in San Facts:


Fernando, Pampanga
In an Information, respondent, Eung Won Choi (Choi), was cha
WHERE DISHONORED: the PDB, in Santa Maria, Bulacan.
rged for violation of BP 22, for issuing PNB Check No. 0077133
in the amount of P1,875,000 which was dishonored for havin
ISSUE: WHERE SHOULD THE CASE BE FILED

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


26
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

g been drawn against insufficient funds. ause of the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.
Either the offended party or the accused may, however, appeal
Upon arraignment, Choi, with the assistance of counsel, pleade the civil aspect of the judgment despite the acquittal of the acc
d "not guilty" to the offense charged. Following the pre-trial co used.
nference, the prosecution presented its evidence-in-chief. Afte
r the prosecution rested its case, Choi filed a Motion for Leave When a demurrer to evidence is filed without leave of court, th
of Court to File Demurrer to Evidence to which he attached his e whole case is submitted for judgment on the basis of the evid
Demurrer, asserting that the prosecution failed to prove that ence for the prosecution as the accused is deemed to have wai
he received the notice of dishonor, hence, the presumption of t ved the right to present evidence. At that juncture, the court is
he element of knowledge of insufficiency of funds did not arise called upon to decide the case including its civil aspect, unless
. the enforcement of the civil liability by a separate civil action h
as been waived or reserved.
Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati, Branch 65 (MeTC 65) gran
ted the Demurrer and dismissed the case. If the filing of a separate civil action has not been reserved or p
riorly instituted or the enforcement of civil liability is not waiv
Petitioner, Hun Hyung Park (Park) appealed the civil aspect of ed, the trial court should, in case of conviction, state the civil li
the case to the Regional Trial Court (RTC60), contending that t ability or damages caused by the wrongful act or omission to b
he dismissal of the criminal case should not include its civil as e recovered from the accused by the offended party, if there is
pect. any.

By Decision, the RTC 60 held that while the evidence presente For, in case of acquittal, the accused may still be adjudged civil
d was insufficient to prove respondent’s criminal liability, it di ly liable. The extinction of the penal action does not carry with
d not altogether extinguish his civil liability. It accordingly gra it the extinction of the civil action where (a) the acquittal is ba
nted the appeal of petitioner and ordered respondent to pay hi sed on reasonable doubt as only preponderance of evidence is
m the amount of P1,875,000 with legal interest. required; (b) the court declares that the liability of the accused
is only civil; and (c) the civil liability of the accused does not a
Upon Choi’s MR however, the RTC set aside its decision and or rise from or is not based upon the crime of which the accused
dered the remand of the case to the MeTC "for further proceed was acquitted.
ings, so that the defendant [-respondent herein] may adduce e
vidence on the civil aspect of the case." The civil action based on delict may, however, be deemed exti
nguished if there is a finding on the final judgment in the crimi
Petitioner appealed RTC60's reversal of its prior decision but t nal action that the act or omission from which the civil liability
he same was denied by CA may arise did not exist.

Issue: Whether or not the private offended party can appeal fo In case of a demurrer to evidence filed with leave of court, the
r the civil aspect of the case when the accused has been acquitt accused may adduce countervailing evidence if the court denie
ed. s the demurrer. Such denial bears no distinction as to the two
aspects of the case because there is a disparity of evidentiary v
Ruling: alue between the quanta of evidence in such aspects of the cas
e. In other words, a court may not deny the demurrer as to the
Yes. As a rule, a judgment of acquittal is immediately final and criminal aspect and at the same time grant the demurrer as to
executory and the prosecution cannot appeal the acquittal bec the civil aspect, for if the evidence so far presented is not insuf

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


27
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

ficient to prove the crime beyond reasonable doubt, then the s r proceedings on the civil aspect of the case.
ame evidence is likewise not insufficient to establish civil liabil
ity by mere preponderance of evidence. Issue :Whether or not the acquittal of the accused carries with
it the extinction of the civil liability.
On the other hand, if the evidence so far presented is insufficie
nt as proof beyond reasonable doubt, it does not follow that th Ruling :
e same evidence is insufficient to establish a preponderance of
evidence. For if the court grants the demurrer, proceedings on Yes. The acquittal of the accused does not automatically preclu
the civil aspect of the case generally proceeds. The only recog de a judgment against him on the civil aspect of the case. The e
nized instance when an acquittal on demurrer carries with it t xtinction of the penal action does not carry with it the extincti
he dismissal of the civil aspect is when there is a finding that t on of the civil liability where: (a) the acquittal is based on reas
he act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did n onable doubt as only preponderance of evidence is required; (
ot exist. Absent such determination, trial as to the civil aspect b) the court declares that the liability of the accused is only civ
of the case must perforce continue. il; and (c) the civil liability of the accused does not arise from o
r is not based upon the crime of which the accused is acquitted
The case is REMANDED to MeTC 65 which is DIRECTED to fort . However, the civil action based on delict may be deemed exti
hwith set Criminal Case No. 294690 for further proceedings on nguished if there is a finding on the final judgment in the crimi
ly for the purpose of receiving evidence on the civil aspect of t nal action that the act or omission from which the civil liability
he case. may arise did not exist or where the accused did not commit t
he acts or omission imputed to him.

29. DAYAP VS SENDIONG (1/29/2009) Thus, if demurrer is granted and the accused is acquitted by th
Principle: e court, the accused has the right to adduce evidence on the civ
il aspect of the case unless the court also declares that the act
 The civil action based on delict may be deemed extin or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exis
guished if there is a finding on the final judgment in t t.34 This is because when the accused files a demurrer to evid
he criminal action that the act or omission from whic ence, he has not yet adduced evidence both on the criminal an
h the civil liability may arise did not exist or where th d civil aspects of the case. The only evidence on record is the e
e accused did not commit the acts or omission imput vidence for the prosecution. What the trial court should do is i
ed to him. ssue an order or partial judgment granting the demurrer to evi
dence and acquitting the accused, and set the case for continua
Facts: tion of trial for the accused to adducevidence by way of rebutt
Herwin Petitioner Dayap was charged with the crime of Reckle al. Thereafter, the court shall render judgment on the civil asp
ss Imprudence resulting to Homicide, Less Serious Physical Inj ect of the case.
uries, and Damage to Property before MTC Sibulan.
A scrutiny of the MTC’s decision supports the conclusion that t
After the prosecution has rested its case, Dayap filed demurrer he acquittal was based on the findings that the act or omission
to evidence. MTC granted the demurrer and acquitted petition from which the civil liability may arise did not exist and that p
er of the crime of reckless imprudence. The MTC found that th etitioner did not commit the acts or omission imputed to him;
e evidence presented by respondents failed to establish the all hence, petitioner’s civil liability has been extinguished by his a
egations in the Information. RTC affirmed the acquittal of petit cquittal. It should be noted that the MTC categorically stated th
ioner but ordered the remand of the case to the MTC for furthe at it cannot find any evidence which would prove that a crime

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


28
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

had been committed and that accused was the person responsi eferred to refers only to the civil action for the recovery of the
ble for it. It added that the prosecution failed to establish that i civil liability arising from the offense charged. This does not in
t was petitioner who committed the crime as charged since its clude recovery of civil liability under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 21
witnesses never identified petitioner as the one who was drivi 76 of the Civil Code of the Philippines arising from the same ac
ng the cargo truck at the time of the incident. Furthermore, the t or omission which may be prosecuted separately even witho
MTC found that the proximate cause of the accident is the da ut a reservation.
mage to the rear portion of the truck caused by the swerving o
f the Colt Galant into the rear left portion of the cargo truck an Thus, Civil Case No. CV-94-214, an independent civil action for
d not the reckless driving of the truck by petitioner, clearly est damages on account of the fraud commited against responden
ablishing that petitioner is not guilty of reckless imprudence. C t Villegas under Article 33 of the Civil Code, may proceed inde
onsequently, there is no more need to remand the case to the t pendently even if there was no reservation as to its filing.
rial court for proceedings on the civil aspect of the case, since
petitioner’s acquittal has extinguished his civil liability.
31. CASUPANAN VS LAROYA (388 SCRA 28)
30. DMPI EMPLOYEES CORP VS VELEZ Principle:
(11/29/2001)  The accused in a pending criminal case for reckless i
Principle: mprudence can validly file, simultaneously and indep
 There is no more need for a reservation of the right t endently, a separate civil action for quasi-delict again
o file the independent civil actions under Articles 32, st the private complainant in the criminal case.
33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. T Facts :
he reservation and waiver referred to refers only to t Two vehicles, one driven by respondent Laroya and the other
he civil action for the recovery of the civil liability ari owned by petitioner Capitulo and driven by Casupanan, figure
sing from the offense charged. This does not include r d in an accident. As a result, two cases were filed with the MCT
ecovery of civil liability under Articles 32, 33, 34 and C Capas. Laroya filed a criminal case against Casupanan for rec
2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines arising from kless imprudence resulting in damage to property. On the othe
the same act or omission which may be prosecuted s r hand, Casupanan and Capitulo filed a civil case against Laroy
eparately even without a reservation. a for quasi-delict.

Issue : Whether or not the civil case could proceed independe Laroya, defendant in the civil case, filed a motion to dismiss th
ntly of the criminal case for estafa without having reserved the e civil case on the ground of forum-shopping considering the p
filing of the civil action. endency of the criminal case. The MCTC granted the motion an
d dismissed the civil case.
Ruling :
Issue : Whether or not an accused in a pending criminal case f
Yes. Under the present rule, only the civil liability arising from or reckless imprudence can validly file, simultaneously and in
the offense charged is deemed instituted with the criminal acti dependently, a separate civil action for quasi-delict against the
on unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves h private complainant in the criminal case.
is right to institute it separately, or institutes the civil action pr
ior to the criminal action. Ruling :

There is no more need for a reservation of the right to file the i Yes. The accused can file a civil action for quasi-delict for the s
ndependent civil actions under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of ame act or omission he is accused of in the criminal case. This i
the Civil Code of the Philippines. The reservation and waiver r

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


29
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

s expressly allowed in paragraph 6, Section 1 of the present Ru 1. Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction
le 111 which states that the counterclaim of the accused may b extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil liability
based solely thereon;
e litigated in a separate civil action. This is only fair for two rea
sons. First, the accused is prohibited from setting up any count 2. Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives
erclaim in the civil aspect that is deemed instituted in the crim notwithstanding the death of the accused, if the same may also
be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict. Aricle
inal case. The accused is therefore forced to litigate separately
1157 of the Civil Code enumerates these other sources of
his counterclaim against the offended party. If the accused doe obligation from which the civil liability may arise as a result of
s not file a separate civil action for quasi-delict, the prescriptiv the same act or omission: Law, Contracts, Quasi-contracts,
e period may set in since the period continues to run until the Delicts…,Quasi-delicts;
civil action for quasi-delict is filed. 3. Where the civil liability survives, an action for recovery
therefore may be pursued but only by way of separate civil
Second, the accused, who is presumed innocent, has a right to i action and may be enforced either against the
executor/administrator of the estate of the accused, depending
nvoke Article 2177 of the Civil Code, in the same way that the on the source of obligation aside from delicts;
offended party can avail of this remedy which is independent o
4. Finally, the private offended party need not fear a
f the criminal action. To disallow the accused from filing a sepa
forfeiture of his right to file this separate civil action by
rate civil action for quasi-delict, while refusing to recognize his prescription, in cases where during the prosecution of the
counterclaim in the criminal case, is to deny him due process criminal action and prior to its extinction, the private offended
of law, access to the courts, and equal protection of the law. party instituted together therewith the civil action. In such case,
the statute of limitations on the civil liability is deemed
interrupted during the pendency of the criminal case,
Thus, the civil action based on quasi-delict filed separately by conformably with provisions of Article 1155 of the Civil Code,
Casupanan and Capitulo is proper. The order of dismissal by th that should thereby avoid any apprehension on a possible
e MCTC of Civil Case No. 2089 on the ground of forum-shoppin privation of right by prescription.
g is erroneous. In the case at bar, the death of Bayotas extinguished his criminal
and civil liability based solely on the act of rape. Hence, his civil
liability also extinguished together with his criminal liability
32. PEOPLE VS BAYOTAS (as to civil liability)
upon his death.
FACTS:
Rogelio Bayotas y Cordova was charged with Rape and
eventually convicted thereof. Pending appeal of his conviction, 33. PEOPLE VS DATO (12/12/2010)
Bayotas died. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the FACTS:
criminal aspect of the appeal. However, it required the Solicitor
Datu was charged with Acts of Lasciviousness penalized under
General to file its comment with regard to the civil liability of
Art. 3 of R.A. 7610 because he inserted his middle finger inside
Bayotas arising from his commission of the offense charged.
a 5 year old girl’s vagina. He was convicted thereof but during
appeal he died. In light of the supervening event In which
occurred while petitioner’s appeal of the judgment of his
ISSUE: Whether or not the death of the accused pending appeal
conviction was pending resolution dismissed the appeal for has
of his conviction extinguish his civil liability.
been rendered moot.
HELD:
ISSUE: Whether or not the death of the accused pending appeal
Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code provides that by death of of his conviction extinguish his civil liability.
the convict personal liabilities are extinguished, as to pecuniary
HELD:
penalties liability therefore is extinguished only when the death
of the offender occurs before final judgment. Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code provides that by death of
the convict personal liabilities are extinguished, as to pecuniary
Thus the court made a ruling as follows:
penalties liability therefore is extinguished only when the death
of the offender occurs before final judgment.

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


30
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

Thus the court made a ruling as follows: 1.) Whether or not the death of Bernardo extinguished
her civil liability arising out of the case for B.P. 22.
1. Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction
2.) Whether or not the B.P. 22 case as appealed by Petition
extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil liability
for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 be dismissed
based solely thereon;
and the civil liabilty be severed with separately in
2. Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives another civil action.
notwithstanding the death of the accused, if the same may also HELD:
be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict. Aricle
1.) No. Bernardo's civil liability survived her death as it is
1157 of the Civil Code enumerates these other sources of
based on contract.
obligation from which the civil liability may arise as a result of
As a general rule, the death of an accused pending appeal
the same act or omission: Law, Contracts, Quasi-contracts,
extinguishes her criminal liability and the corresponding civil
Delicts…,Quasi-delicts;
liability based solely on the offense (delict). The death amounts
3. Where the civil liability survives, an action for recovery to an acquittal of the accused based on the constitutionally
therefore may be pursued but only by way of separate civil mandated presumption of innocence in her favor, which can be
action and may be enforced either against the overcome only by a finding of guilt - something that death
executor/administrator of the estate of the accused, depending prevents the court from making. In a sense, death absolves the
on the source of obligation aside from delicts; accused from any earthly responsibility arising from the
offense — a divine act that no human court can reverse, qualify,
4. Finally, the private offended party need not fear a
much less disregard.
forfeiture of his right to file this separate civil action by
prescription, in cases where during the prosecution of the The independent civil liabilities, however, survive death
criminal action and prior to its extinction, the private offended and an action for recovery therefore may
party instituted together therewith the civil action. In such case, begenerally pursued but only by filing a separate civil
the statute of limitations on the civil liability is deemed action and subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of the Rules on
interrupted during the pendency of the criminal case, Criminal Procedure as amended. This separate civil action
conformably with provisions of Article 1155 of the Civil Code, may be enforced against the estate of the accused.
that should thereby avoid any apprehension on a possible
As a necessary consequence of this special rule, the civil
privation of right by prescription.
liabilities arising from the issuance of a worthless check are
It is therefore evident from the foregoing discussion that deemed instituted in a case for violation of B.P. 22; the death of
venturing into the merits of petitioner’s appeal given the Bernardo did not automatically extinguish the action. The
circumstance of his untimely demise has become superfluous independent civil liability based on contract, which was
because, even assuming this Court would proceed to affirm the deemed instituted in the criminal action for B.P. 22, may
lower court’s judgment of conviction, such a ruling would be of still be enforced against her estate in the present case.
no force and effect as the resultant criminal liability is totally
In B.P. 22 cases, the criminal action shall be deemed to include
extinguished by his death. Consequently, his civil liability
the corresponding civil actions. Instead of instituting two
arising from the crime, being civil liability ex delicto, is likewise
separate cases, only a single suit is filed and tried. This rule was
extinguished by his death. Since his appeal was still pending
enacted to help declog court dockets, which had been packed
before this Court, there was no final judgment of conviction
with B.P. 22 because creditors used the courts as collectors.
upon which an award of civil indemnity could be based.
2.) No, because it would be costly, burdensome, and time-
consuming to dismiss the present case and require the
34. PEOPLE VS BERNARDO (10/5/2015) Bumanglags to file a separate civil action.
FACTS: Other principles:
Bernardo was charged with violation of B.P. 22. She It is not required that the accused be convicted to be entitled to
was convicted thereof in the RTC. On appeal, she died. Due to civil liability based on delict. As long as the facts constituting
such death, Bernardo’s heirs argued that the death of Bernardo the offense charged are established by preponderance of
extinguished her civil liability. In the alternative, they evidence, civil liability may be awarded. Moreover, the civil
contended that any civil liability should be settled in a separate liability based ondelict is deemed instituted with the criminal
civil action. action unless the offended party waives the civil action,
reserves the right to institute it separately, or institutes the civil
ISSUES:
action prior to the criminal action.

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


31
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

Conformably with the foregoing, the action for specific


performance in the HLURB would determine whether or not
35. SAN MIGUEL INC VS PEREZ (705 SCRA 38)
San Miguel Properties was legally entitled to demand the
FACTS:
delivery of the TCT, while the criminal action would decide
San Miguel as represented by Atty. Orendain as its duly whether or not BF Homes’ directors and officers were
authorized rehabilitation receiver appointed by the SEC criminally liable for withholding the TCT. The resolution of the
purchased lots from BF Homes. San Miguel already paid the full former must obviously precede that of the latter, for should the
price thereof but the Transfer Certificate Title (TCT) was not HLURB hold San Miguel Properties to be not entitled to the
yet delivered to it. BF Homes claimed that it withheld the TCT delivery of the TCT because Atty. Orendain did not have the
because Atty. Orendain had ceased to be its rehabilitation authority to represent BF Homes in the sale due to his
receiver at the time of the transactions after being meanwhile receivership having been terminated by the SEC, the basis for
replaced as receiver by FBO Network Management, Inc. the criminal liability for the violation of Section 25 of
Presidential Decree No. 957 would evaporate, thereby negating
BF Homes refused to deliver the 20 TCTs despite demands
the need to proceed with the criminal case.
promting San Miguel to file a criminal charge against the
directors and officers of BF Homes with non-delivery of titles in
violation of Section 25, in relation to Section 39, both of
IV.RULE 112 (PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION)
Presidential Decree No. 957 (I.S. No. 00-2256). At the same
time, San Miguel Properties sued BF Homes for specific
performance in the HLURB praying to compel BF Homes to
36. HASHIM VS BUNCAN (71 PHIL 216)
release the TCT in its favor.
PRINCIPLE (as discussed in the lecture of Judge D):
ISSUE: Whether or not a prejudicial question is present to the
 Viewed in the light of fundamental principles, the
subject criminal case while there is also a case for specific
right to a preliminary investigation is statutory, not
performance pending before HLURB that needs to be resolved.
constitutional. Its oft-repeated purpose is to secure
HELD: the innocent against hasty, malicious, and oppressive
prosecutions, and to protect him from open and public
Yes. The essential elements of a prejudicial question are
accusation of crime, from the trouble, expenses and
provided in Section 7, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court, to wit: (a)
anxiety of a public trial, and also to protect the State
the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or
from useless and expensive prosecutions.
intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal
action, and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether
FACTS:
or not the criminal action may proceed.
Action for specific performance, even if pending in the HLURB, Petitioner, Hashim, was arrested without warrant for the
an administrative agency, raises a prejudicial question BF possession of counterfeit treasury certificates of the
Homes’ posture that the administrative case for specific Commonwealth of the Philippines. He was released on the same
performance in the HLURB posed a prejudicial question that day upon filing a bond. The following day, a complaint was filed
must first be determined before the criminal case for violation against him with the Office of the City Fiscal, and after the
corresponding investigation conducted by the respondent
of Section 25 of Presidential Decree No. 957 could be resolved
Fiscal an information was lodged against him. A warrant of
is correct.
arrest was issued, and he was later admitted to bail. Before
The concept of a prejudicial question involves a civil action and arraignment, his counsel filed motions asking the Fiscal to
a criminal case. Yet, contrary to San Miguel Properties’ furnish the clerk of court with the testimony of the witnesses
submission that there could be no prejudicial question to speak who testified at the PI. The Fiscal opposed the motion on the
of because no civil action where the prejudicial question arose ground that the provisions of the Rules of Court on "Preliminary
was pending, the action for specific performance in the HLURB Investigation" do not apply to PIs conducted by the Fiscal for
the City of Manila. CFI Manila Judge Boncan dismissed the
raises a prejudicial question that sufficed to suspend the
motion. By another motion, petitioner asked the warrant be
proceedings determining the charge for the criminal violation
cancelled and insisted that the court conduct the PI referred to
of Section 25 of Presidential Decree No. 957. This is true simply in Sec 1, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. The respondent Fiscal
because the action for specific performance was an action civil filed an objection on the ground, among others, that there was
in nature but could not be instituted elsewhere except in the no necessity for the court to conduct a PI in this case because
HLURB, whose jurisdiction over the action was exclusive and
original.

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


32
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

the substitute therefor had already been performed by the respondent fiscal and the presiding judge that there was
Fiscal. Judge Boncan again dismissed the motion. probable ground to proceed against the petitioner, is in effect
to ask for another preliminary investigation. Not this, however,
ISSUE: Whether, in a preliminary investigation conducted by but a trial upon the merits, is what section 4 of Rule 108
the fiscal for the City of Manila, the accused is entitled to be ordains.
informed of the substance of the testimony and of the evidence
presented against him as marked in Section 13 of Rule 108.
37. ARROYO VS DOJ (7/23/2013)
RULING:
PRINCIPLE:
No. This examination corresponds to the preliminary
investigation conducted by a justice of the peace or municipal  The doctrine of concurrent jurisdiction means equal
judge after the arrest of the defendant in accordance with Acts jurisdiction to deal with the same subject matter.
194, 1450 and 1627. To subject the respondent Fiscal to the Contrary to the contention of the petitioners, there is
provisions of this section is, as elsewhere emphasized, to no prohibition on simultaneous exercise of power
prolong an otherwise brief investigation which said officer is between two coordinate bodies. What is prohibited is
authorized to conduct under existing laws. Hence, our the situation where one files a complaint against a
persuasion that section 11, like section 13, of Rule 108 was not respondent initially with one office (such as the
meant to apply to the preliminary investigations conducted by Comelec) for preliminary investigation which was
the City Fiscal. immediately acted upon by said office and the re-filing
of substantially the same complaint with another
Viewed in the light of fundamental principles, the right to a office (such as the DOJ). The subsequent assumption
preliminary investigation is statutory, not constitutional. Its of jurisdiction by the second office over the cases filed
oft-repeated purpose is to secure the innocent against hasty, will not be allowed. Indeed, it is a settled rule that the
malicious, and oppressive prosecutions, and to protect him body or agency that first takes cognizance of the
from open and public accusation of crime, from the trouble, complaint shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion
expenses and anxiety of a public trial, and also to protect the of the others.
State from useless and expensive prosecutions. The new Rules
were drafted in the light of the court’s experience with cases FACTS:
where preliminary investigations had dragged on for weeks The Comelec issued Resolution No. 9266 approving the
and even months. The court had intended to remove this clog creation of a joint committee with the Department of Justice
upon the judicial machinery and to make a preliminary (DOJ), which shall conduct preliminary investigation on the
investigation as simple and as speedy as is consistent with the alleged election offenses and anomalies committed during the
substantial rights of the accused. The investigation is advisedly 2004 and 2007 elections.
called preliminary, to be followed by the trial proper. The
investigating judge or prosecuting officer acts upon probable The Comelec and the DOJ issued Joint Order No. 001-2011
cause and reasonable belief, not upon proof beyond a creating and constituting a Joint Committee and Fact-Finding
reasonable doubt. The occasion is not for the full and Team on the 2004 and 2007 National Elections electoral fraud
exhaustive display of the parties’ evidence; it is for the and manipulation cases composed of officials from the DOJ and
presentation of such evidence only as may engender well- the Comelec. In its initial report, the Fact-Finding Team
grounded belief that an offense has been committed and that concluded that manipulation of the results in the May 14, 2007
the accused is probably guilty thereof. When all this is fulfilled, senatorial elections in the provinces of North and South
the accused will not be permitted to cast about for fancied Cotabato and Maguindanao were indeed perpetrated. The Fact-
reasons to delay the proceedings; the time to ask for more is at Finding Team recommended that herein petitioners Gloria
the trial. The petitioner’s case is a good example. A preliminary Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA), et al. to be subjected to preliminary
investigation was conducted by the respondent fiscal at which investigation for electoral sabotage.
evidence was adduced warranting the filing of an information
against the petitioner. The in formation was filed in court, and After the preliminary investigation, the COMELEC en banc
the presiding judge, upon the strength of the said preliminary adopted a resolution ordering that information/s for the crime
investigation and sworn information, issued a warrant for the of electoral sabotage be filed against GMA, et al. while that the
arrest of the petitioner. To ask for the abstract of testimony at charges against Jose Miguel Arroyo, among others, should be
this stage of the proceedings, ostensibly for no other purpose dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.Thereafter, petitioners
than to scrutinize the same evidence which convinced the filed before the Court separate Petitions for Certiorari and

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


33
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

Prohibition with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary that we cannot consider the creation of the Joint Committee as
Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction an abdication of the Comelec’s independence enshrined in the
assailing the creation of the Joint Panel. 1987 Constitution.
2. The procedure in conducting the preliminary
ISSUE: investigation is governed by Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on
Criminal Procedure and Rule 34 of the Comelec Rules of
1. Whether or not the creation of the Joint Panel undermines
Procedure. Under both Rules,46 the respondent shall submit his
the decisional independence of the Comelec AND
counter-affidavit and that of his witnesses and other supporting
2. Whether or not the DOJ should conduct preliminary documents relied upon for his defense, within ten (10) days
investigation only when deputized by the Comelec but not from receipt of the subpoena, with the complaint and
exercise concurrent jurisdiction supporting affidavits and documents.47 Also in both Rules,
respondent is given the right to examine evidence, but such
right of examination is limited only to the documents or
RULING: evidence submitted by complainants which she may not have
been furnished and to copy them at her expense.
1. While recognizing the Comelec’s exclusive power to
investigate and prosecute cases under Batas Pambansa Bilang As to GMA’s right violated when her motion for extension of
881 or the Omnibus Election Code, the Court pointed out that time within which to submit her counter-affidavit and
the framers of the 1987 Constitution did not have such countervailing evidence was consequently denied. The Rules
intention. This exclusivity is thus a legislative enactment that use the term "shall" in requiring the respondent to submit
can very well be amended by Section 43 of RA 9369. Therefore, counter-affidavit and other countervailing evidence within ten
under the present law, the Comelec and other prosecuting arms (10) days from receipt of the subpoena. It is settled that the use
of the government, such as the DOJ, now exercise concurrent of the word "shall" which is a word of command, underscores
jurisdiction in the investigation and prosecution of election the mandatory character of the rule.50 As in any other rule,
offenses. though, liberality in the application may be allowed provided
that the party is able to present a compelling justification for
To be sure, the creation of a Joint Committee is not repugnant the non-observance of the mandatory rules. In the 2008
to the concept of "concurrent jurisdiction" authorized by the Revised Manual for Prosecutors, investigating prosecutors
amendatory law. As we explained in our September 18, 2012 allow or grant motions or requests for extension of time to
Decision: submit counter-affidavits when the interest of justice demands
that respondent be given reasonable time or sufficient
x x x The doctrine of concurrent jurisdiction means equal opportunity to engage the services of counsel; examine
jurisdiction to deal with the same subject matter. Contrary to voluminous records submitted in support of the complaint or
the contention of the petitioners, there is no prohibition on undertake research on novel, complicated or technical
simultaneous exercise of power between two coordinate questions or issues of law and facts of the case. PETITION
bodies. What is prohibited is the situation where one files a DENIED.
complaint against a respondent initially with one office (such as
the Comelec) for preliminary investigation which was 38. PEOPLE VS BELTRAN (6/1/2007)
immediately acted upon by said office and the re-filing of
PRINCIPLE:
substantially the same complaint with another office (such as
the DOJ). The subsequent assumption of jurisdiction by the
second office over the cases filed will not be allowed. Indeed, it  Inquest proceedings are proper only when the
is a settled rule that the body or agency that first takes accused has been lawfully arrested without warrant.
cognizance of the complaint shall exercise jurisdiction to the A preliminary investigation is the crucial sieve in the criminal
exclusion of the others.xxx justice system which spells for an individual the difference
between months if not years of agonizing trial and possibly jail
term, on the one hand, and peace of mind and liberty, on the
Notwithstanding the grant of concurrent jurisdiction, the
other hand. Thus, we have characterized the right to a
Comelec and the DOJ nevertheless included a provision in the
preliminary investigation as not "a mere formal or technical
assailed Joint Order whereby the resolutions of the Joint right" but a "substantive" one, forming part of due process in
Committee finding probable cause for election offenses shall criminal justice.41 This especially holds true here where the
still be approved by the Comelec in accordance with the offense charged is punishable by reclusion perpetua and may
Comelec Rules of Procedure.45 With more reason, therefore, be non-bailable for those accused as principals.

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


34
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

FACTS: 2. whether the preliminary investigation On the Ladlad and


Maza Petitions were proper?
These are consolidated petitions for the writs of prohibition
and certiorari to enjoin petitioners’ prosecution for Rebellion
and to set aside the rulings of the Department of Justice (DOJ) RULING:
and the Regional Trial Court of Makati City (RTC Makati) on the
investigation and prosecution of petitioners’ cases. 1. The Inquest Proceeding against Beltran for Rebellion is
Void. Inquest proceedings are proper only when the accused
Petitioner in G.R. No. 175013, Crispin B. Beltran (Beltran), and has been lawfully arrested without warrant.
petitioners in G.R. Nos. 172074-76, are members of the House
of Representatives representing various party-list groups. The joint affidavit of Beltran’s arresting officers15 states that the
Petitioners all face charges for Rebellion under Article 134 in officers arrested Beltran, without a warrant,16 for Inciting to
relation to Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code in two criminal Sedition, and not for Rebellion. Thus, the inquest prosecutor
cases pending with the RTC Makati. Beltran was arrested could only have conducted – as he did conduct – an inquest for
without a warrant and the arresting officers did not inform Inciting to Sedition and no other. Consequently, when another
Beltran of the crime for which he was arrested. On that evening, group of prosecutors subjected Beltran to a second inquest
Beltran was subjected to an inquest at the Quezon City Hall of proceeding for Rebellion, they overstepped their authority
Justice for Inciting to Sedition under Article 142 of the Revised rendering the second inquest void. None of Beltran’s arresting
Penal Code based on a speech Beltran allegedly gave during a officers saw Beltran commit, in their presence, the crime of
rally in Quezon City on 24 February 2006, on the occasion of the Rebellion. Nor did they have personal knowledge of facts and
20thanniversary of the EDSA Revolution. The inquest was circumstances that Beltran had just committed Rebellion,
sufficient to form probable cause to believe that he had
based on the joint affidavit of Beltran’s arresting officers who
committed Rebellion. What these arresting officers alleged in
claimed to have been present at the rally. The authorities
their affidavit is that they saw and heard Beltran make an
brought back Beltran to Camp Crame where he was subjected allegedly seditious speech on 24 February 2006.17
to a second inquest, this time for Rebellion. The letters referred
to the DOJ for appropriate action the results of the CIDG’s
Indeed, under DOJ Circular No. 61, dated 21 September 1993,
investigation implicating Beltran, the petitioners in G.R. Nos.
the initial duty of the inquest officer is to determine if the arrest
172074-76, San Juan, and several others as “leaders and of the detained person was made "in accordance with the
promoters” of an alleged foiled plot to overthrow the Arroyo provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 5, Rule 113."18 If
government. The plot was supposed to be carried out jointly by the arrest was not properly effected, the inquest officer should
members of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP)and proceed under Section 9 of Circular No. 61 which provides:
the Makabayang Kawal ng Pilipinas (MKP), which have formed
a “tactical alliance.” Where Arrest Not Properly Effected.— Should the Inquest
The DOJ panel of prosecutors issued a Resolution finding Officer find that the arrest was not made in accordance with the
probable cause to indict Beltran and San Juan as Rules, he shall:
“leaders/promoters” of Rebellion. The Information alleged that
Beltran, San Juan, and other individuals “conspiring and a) recommend the release of the person arrested or detained;
confederating with each other, x x x, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously form a tactical alliance between the b) note down the disposition on the referral document;
CPP/NPA, renamed as Partidong Komunista ngPilipinas (PKP)
and its armed regular members as Katipunan ng Anak ng Bayan
c) prepare a brief memorandum indicating the reasons for the
(KAB) with theMakabayang Kawal ng Pilipinas (MKP) and
action taken; and
thereby rise publicly and take up arms against the
dulyconstituted government.
d) forward the same, together with the record of the case, to the
In his Comment to the petition, the Solicitor General claims that City or Provincial Prosecutor for appropriate action.
Beltran’s inquest for Rebellion was valid and that the RTC
Makati correctly found probable cause to try Beltran for such For the failure of Beltran’s panel of inquest prosecutors to
felony. comply with Section 7, Rule 112 in relation to Section 5, Rule
113 and DOJ Circular No. 61, we declare Beltran’s inquest
ISSUE: void.19 Beltran would have been entitled to a preliminary
1. Whether the inquest proceeding against Beltran for investigation had he not asked the trial court to make a judicial
Rebellion was valid and

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


35
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

determination of probable cause, which effectively took the 39. TATAD VS SANDIGANBAYAN (159 SCRA
place of such proceeding. 70)

2. The Preliminary Investigation was Tainted With PRINCIPLE:


Irregularities. On the Ladlad and Maza Petitions. The
procedure for preliminary investigation of offenses punishable  The inordinate delay in terminating the preliminary
by at least four years, two months and one day is outlined in investigation (5 years in this case) and filing the
Section 3, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. information in the instant case is violative of the
Instead of following this procedure scrupulously, "so that the constitutionally guaranteed right of the petitioner to
constitutional right to liberty of a potential accused can be due process and to a speedy disposition of the cases
protected from any material damage,"38 respondent against him.
prosecutors nonchalantly disregarded it. Respondent
prosecutors failed to comply with Section 3(a) of Rule 112 FACTS:
which provides that the complaint (which, with its attachment,
must be of such number as there are respondents) be The complainant, Antonio de los Reyes, originally filed what he
accompanied by the affidavits of the complainant and his termed "a report" with the Legal Panel of the Presidential
witnesses, subscribed and sworn to before any prosecutor or Security Command (PSC) on October 1974, containing charges
government official authorized to administer oath, or, in of alleged violations of Rep. Act No. 3019 against then Secretary
their absence or unavailability, before a notary public. of Public Information Francisco S. Tatad. The "report" was
Respondent prosecutors treated the unsubscribed letters of made to "sleep" in the office of the PSC until the end of 1979
Tanigue and Mendoza of the CIDG, PNP as complaints39 and
when it became widely known that Secretary (then Minister)
accepted the affidavits attached to the letters even though some
Tatad had a falling out with President Marcos and had resigned
of them were notarized by a notary public without any showing
from the Cabinet. On December 12, 1979, the 1974 complaint
that a prosecutor or qualified government official was
unavailable as required by Section 3(a) of Rule 112. was resurrected in the form of a formal complaint filed with the
Tanodbayan. The Tanodbayan acted on the complaint on April
1, 1980-which was around two months after petitioner Tatad's
Further, Section 3(b) of Rule 112 mandates that the prosecutor,
resignation was accepted by Pres. Marcos — by referring the
after receiving the complaint, must determine if there are
grounds to continue with the investigation. If there is none, he complaint to the CIS, Presidential Security Command, for
shall dismiss the case, otherwise he shall "issue a subpoena to investigation and report. On June 16, 1980, the CIS report was
the respondents." Here, after receiving the CIDG letters, submitted to the Tanodbayan, recommending the filing of
respondent prosecutors peremptorily issued subpoenas to charges for graft and corrupt practices against former Minister
petitioners requiring them to appear at the DOJ office on 13 Tatad and Antonio L. Cantero. By October 25, 1982, all affidavits
March 2006 "to secure copies of the complaints and its and counter-affidavits were in the case was already for
attachments." By peremptorily issuing the subpoenas to disposition by the Tanodbayan. However, it was only on July 5,
petitioners, tolerating the complainant’s antics during the 1985 that a resolution was approved by the Tanodbayan,
investigation, and distributing copies of a witness’ affidavit to recommending the ring of the corresponding criminal
members of the media knowing that petitioners have not had informations against the accused Francisco Tatad. Five (5)
the opportunity to examine the charges against them, criminal informations were filed with the Sandiganbayan on
respondent prosecutors not only trivialized the investigation June 12, 1985, all against petitioner Tatad alone.
but also lent credence to petitioners’ claim that the entire
proceeding was a sham.
ISSUE: Was petitioner deprived of his constitutional right to
A preliminary investigation is the crucial sieve in the criminal due process and the right to "speedy disposition" of the cases
justice system which spells for an individual the difference against him as guaranteed by the Constitution?
between months if not years of agonizing trial and possibly jail
RULING:
term, on the one hand, and peace of mind and liberty, on the
other hand. Thus, we have characterized the right to a We find the long delay in the termination of the preliminary
preliminary investigation as not "a mere formal or technical investigation by the Tanodbayan in the instant case to be
right" but a "substantive" one, forming part of due process in violative of the constitutional right of the accused to due
criminal justice.41 This especially holds true here where the process. Substantial adherence to the requirements of the law
offense charged is punishable by reclusion perpetua and may governing the conduct of preliminary investigation, including
be non-bailable for those accused as principals.
substantial compliance with the time limitation prescribed by
the law for the resolution of the case by the prosecutor, is part

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


36
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

of the procedural due process constitutionally guaranteed by


the fundamental law. Not only under the broad umbrella of the Court holds that petitioners’ right to a speedy disposition of
due process clause, but under the constitutional guarantee of their criminal case had been violated. It is observed that the
"speedy disposition" of cases as embodied in Section 16 of the preliminary investigation proceedings took a protracted
Bill of Rights (both in the 1973 and the 1987 Constitutions), the amount of time to complete.
inordinate delay is violative of the petitioner's constitutional
rights. A delay of close to three (3) years can not be deemed In this relation, the Court does not lend credence to the SB’s
position that the conduct of preliminary investigation was
reasonable or justifiable in the light of the circumstance
terminated as early as March 27, 2003, or the time when
obtaining in the case at bar. We are not impressed by the
Cañares prepared the Resolution recommending the filing of
attempt of the Sandiganbayan to sanitize the long delay by the Information. This is belied by Section 4, Rule II of the
indulging in the speculative assumption that "the delay may be Administrative Order No. 07 dated April 10, 1990, otherwise
due to a painstaking and gruelling scrutiny by the Tanodbayan known as the “Rules of Procedure of the Office of the
as to whether the evidence presented during the preliminary Ombudsman,” which provides:
investigation merited prosecution of a former high ranking
government official." In the first place, such a statement SEC. 4. Procedure–The preliminary investigation of cases falling
suggests a double standard of treatment, which must be under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan and Regional Trial
emphatically rejected. Secondly, three out of the five charges Courts shall be conducted in the manner prescribed in Section
against the petitioner were for his alleged failure to file his 3, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, subject to the following
sworn statement of assets and liabilities required by Republic provisions: x x x x No information may be filed and no complaint
Act No. 3019, which certainly did not involve complicated legal may be dismissed without the written authority or approval of
and factual issues necessitating such "painstaking and gruelling the Ombudsman in cases falling within the jurisdiction of the
scrutiny" as would justify a delay of almost three years in Sandiganbayan, or of the proper Deputy Ombudsman in all
other cases.
terminating the preliminary investigation. The other two
charges relating to alleged bribery and alleged giving of
The above-cited provision readily reveals that there is no
unwarranted benefits to a relative, while presenting more complete resolution of a case under preliminary investigation
substantial legal and factual issues, certainly do not warrant or until the Ombudsman approves the investigating officer’s
justify the period of three years, which it took the Tanodbayan recommendation to either file an Information with the SB or to
to resolve the case. dismiss the complaint. Therefore, in the case at bar, the
After a careful review of the facts and circumstances of this preliminary investigation proceedings against the petitioners
were not terminated upon Cañares’ preparation of the March
case, we are constrained to hold that the inordinate delay in
27, 2003 Resolution and Information but rather, only at the
terminating the preliminary investigation and filing the
time Casimiro finally approved the same for filing with the SB.
information in the instant case is violative of the In this regard, the proceedings were terminated only on May
constitutionally guaranteed right of the petitioner to due 21, 2009, or almost eight (8) years after the filing of the
process and to a speedy disposition of the cases against him. complaint.

Thus, in view of the unjustified length of time miring the Office


40. OSCOLLUELA VS SANDIGANBAYAN (G.R. of the Ombudsman’s resolution of the case as well as the
191411) concomitant prejudice that the delay in this case has caused, it
is undeniable that petitioners’ constitutional right to due
Facts: process and speedy disposition of cases had been violated. As
On July 9, 2009, Coscolluela filed a Motion to Quash,12 the institutional vanguard against corruption and bureaucracy,
arguing,among others, that his constitutional right to speedy the Office of the Ombudsman should create a system of
disposition of cases was violated as the criminal charges against accountability in order to ensure that cases before it are
him were resolved only after almost eight (8) years since the resolved with reasonable dispatch and to equally expose those
complaint was instituted. who are responsible for its delays, as it ought to determine in
this case.
Issue: The sole issue raised for the Court’s resolution is
whether the SB gravely abused its discretion in finding that 41. WINSTON GARCIA CASE (no citation)
petitioners ’right to speedy disposition of cases was not
violated. 42. PEREZ VS HAGONOY BANK (3/29/2001)

Ruling: Facts:

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


37
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

It follows, therefore, that if the private respondent in this case


Meanwhile, pursuant to the said directive of the Secretary of may file a special civil action for certiorari, then with more
Justice, the prosecutor filed a motion in the RTC praying for the reason does it have legal personality to move for a
dismissal of the case against herein petitioner and the reconsideration of the order of the trial court dismissing the
admission of an amended information excluding petitioner as criminal charges against the petitioner. In fact, as a general rule,
one of the accused in Criminal Case-No. 1604-M-94. 12 On a special civil action will not lie unless a motion for
January 13, 1995, presiding Judge D. Roy A. Masadao of the said reconsideration is first filed before the respondent tribunal, to
court granted the said motion. Private respondent assailed the allow it an opportunity to correct its assigned errors.
dismissal of the case against the petitioner in a motion for
reconsideration filed in the RTC. However, the trial court
denied the said motion in an Order dated February 21, 1995 43. SANTOS VS GO (10/19/2005)
after finding that the private respondent, as private
complainant, had no legal personality to question the dismissal Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure clearly shows that
of the criminal charges against the petitioner. it governs appeals to the Court of Appeals from decisions and
final orders or resolutions of the Court of Tax Appeals or quasi-
Issue: whether or not the private respondent, as private judicial agencies in the exercise of their quasi-judicial functions.
complainant, in a criminal case has the legal personality to The Department of Justice is not among the agencies
question the dismissal by the trial judge of the criminal charges enumerated in Section 1of Rule 43. Inclusio unius est exclusio
against herein petitioner upon the motion filed by the alterius.
prosecutor
We cannot agree with petitioners submission that a
Ruling: preliminary investigation is a quasi-judicial proceeding, and
that the DOJ is a quasi-judicial agency exercising a quasi-judicial
In the case of Dela Rosa v. Court of Appeals, 27 we held that: In function when it reviews the findings of a public prosecutor
a special civil action for certiorari filed under Section 1, Rule 65 regarding the presence of probable cause.
of the Rules of Court wherein it is alleged that the trial court
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of Though some cases[19] describe the public prosecutors power
jurisdiction or on other jurisdictional grounds, the rules state to conduct a preliminary investigation as quasi-judicial in
that the petition may be filed by the person aggrieved. In such nature, this is true only to the extent that, like quasi-judicial
case, the aggrieved parties are the State and the private bodies, the prosecutor is an officer of the executive department
offended party or complainant. The complainant has an interest exercising powers akin to those of a court, and the similarity
in the civil aspect of the case so he may file such special civil ends at this point.[20] A quasi-judicial body is as an organ of
action questioning the decision or action of the respondent government other than a court and other than a legislature
court on jurisdictional grounds. In so doing, the complainant which affects the rights of private parties through either
should not bring the action in the name of the People of the adjudication or rule-making.[21] A quasi-judicial agency
Philippines. The action may be prosecuted in (the) name of the performs adjudicatory functions such that its awards,
said complainant." determine the rights of parties, and their decisions have the
same effect as judgments of a court. Such is not the case when a
Furthermore, our ruling in the case of Dee v. Court of Appeals public prosecutor conducts a preliminary investigation to
30 allowing the private offended party to file a special civil determine probable cause to file an information against a
action for certiorari to assail the order of the trial judge person charged with a criminal offense, or when the Secretary
granting the motion to dismiss upon the directive of the of Justice is reviewing the formers order or resolutions. Since
Secretary of Justice is apropos. We held therein that although the DOJ is not a quasi-judicial body and it is not one of those
the correct procedure would have been to appeal the agencies whose decisions, orders or resolutions are appealable
recommendation of the Secretary of Justice to the Office of the to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43, the resolution of the
President, the said remedy was unavailable to the private Secretary of Justice finding probable cause to indict petitioners
offended party as the penalty involved was neither reclusion for estafa is, therefore, not appealable to the Court of Appeals
perpetua nor death. 31 Hence, as no appeal, nor any plain, via a petition for review under Rule 43. Accordingly, the Court
speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law was of Appeals correctly dismissed petitioners petition for review.
available to the private offended party, filing of the petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court was proper.

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


38
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

44. VILLANUEVA VS OPLE (475 SCRA 531) A decision was rendered by the Court of Appeals granting the
writ and perpetually restraining the judge from enforcing his
threat to compel the arraignment of the accused in the case
Fabian v. Desierto[31] held that appeals from the orders,
until the Department of Justice shall have finally resolved the
directives, or decisions of the OMB in administrative
disciplinary cases were cognizable by the Court of Appeals. petition for review. 7
ThenUndersecretary of Justice, Hon.Catalino Macaraig, Jr.,
Tirol v. Del Rosario[32] clarified that, in non -administrative resolving the petition for review reversed the resolution of the
cases in which the OMB had acted with grave abuse of Office of the Provincial Fiscal and directed the fiscal to move for
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, a petition immediate dismissal of the information filed against the
for certiorari under Rule 65 may be filed directly with this accused. 8 A motion to dismiss for insufficiency of evidence was
Court. Accordingly, Kuizon v. Desierto[33] held that this Court
filed by the Provincial Fiscal .the Judge denied the motion and
had jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari questioning the
set the arraigniment.
resolutions or orders of the ombudsman in criminal cases.

Thus, petitioners committed a procedural error in resorting to


a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. To ISSUE: whether the trial court acting on a motion to dismiss a
challenge the dismissal of their Complaint and to require the criminal case filed by the Provincial Fiscal upon instructions of
OMB to file an information, petitioners should have resorted to the Secretary of Justice to whom the case was elevated for
a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The review, may refuse to grant the motion and insist on the
only ground upon which this Court may entertain a review of arraignment and trial on the merits?
the OMBs resolution is grave abuse of discretion,[34] not
Ruling:
reversible errors.
Yes.
45. CRESPO VS MOGUL (151 SCRA 462) While it is true that the fiscal has the quasi judicial discretion to
determine whether or not a criminal case should be filed in
PRINCIPLE:
court or not, once the case had already been brought to Court
whatever disposition the fiscal may feel should be proper in the
 The rule therefore in this jurisdiction is that once a case thereafter should be addressed for the consideration of the
complaint or information is filed in Court any Court, 35 The only qualification is that the action of the Court
disposition of the case as its dismissal or the
must not impair the substantial rights of the accused. 36 or the
conviction or acquittal of the accused rests in the
right of the People to due process of law. 36a
sound discretion of the Court. Although the fiscal
retains the direction and control of the prosecution of Whether the accused had been arraigned or not and whether it
criminal cases even while the case is already in Court was due to a reinvestigation by the fiscal or a review by the
he cannot impose his opinion on the trial court. The Secretary of Justice whereby a motion to dismiss was submitted
Court is the best and sole judge on what to do with the to the Court, the Court in the exercise of its discretion may grant
case before it the motion or deny it and require that the trial on the merits
FACTS: proceed for the proper determination of the case.
Assistant Fiscal Proceso K. de Gala with the approval of the The role of the fiscal or prosecutor as We all know is to see that
Provincial Fiscal filed an information for estafa against Mario Fl. justice is done and not necessarily to secure the conviction of
Crespo When the case was set for arraigment the accused filed the person accused before the Courts. Thus, in spite of his
a motion to defer arraignment on the ground that there was a opinion to the contrary, it is the duty of the fiscal to proceed
pending petition for review filed with the Secretary of Justice of with the presentation of evidence of the prosecution to the
the resolution of the Office of the Provincial Fiscal for the filing Court to enable the Court to arrive at its own independent
of the information. the presiding judge, Leodegario L. Mogul, judgment as to whether the accused should be convicted or
denied the motion. 2 A motion for reconsideration of the order acquitted. The fiscal should not shirk from the responsibility of
was denied. appearing for the People of the Philippines even under such
A petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for a circumstances much less should he abandon the prosecution of
preliminary writ of injunction was filed by the accused in the the case leaving it to the hands of a private prosecutor for then
Court of Appeals 4 In an order of August 17, 1977 the Court of the entire proceedings will be null and void. 37 The least that the
Appeals restrained Judge Mogul from proceeding with the fiscal should do is to continue to appear for the prosecution
arraignment of the accused until further orders of the Court. 5 although he may turn over the presentation of the evidence to

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


39
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

the private prosecutor but still under his direction and Respondents thereafter filed a Motion for Reconsideration
control. 38 and/or Motion to Re-evaluate Prosecutions Evidence
before the OP-QC.[8]
The rule therefore in this jurisdiction is that once a complaint the OP-QC reversed its earlier finding and recommended
or information is filed in Court any disposition of the case as its the withdrawal of the Information.[9] Consequently, a
dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the accused rests in Motion to Dismiss and Withdraw Information was filed
the sound discretion of the Court. Although the fiscal retains the before the RTC.
direction and control of the prosecution of criminal cases even In deference to the prosecutors last resolution, the
while the case is already in Court he cannot impose his opinion RTC ordered the criminal case dismissed in its Order dated
on the trial court. The Court is the best and sole judge on what March 17, 2004, viz.:
to do with the case before it. The determination of the case is Settled is the rule that the determination of the persons to
within its exclusive jurisdiction and competence. A motion to be prosecuted rests primarily with the Public Prosecutor
dismiss the case filed by the fiscal should be addressed to the who is vested with quasi-judicial discretion in the
Court who has the option to grant or deny the same. It does not discharge of this function. Being vested with such power,
matter if this is done before or after the arraignment of the he can reconsider his own resolution if he finds that there
accused or that the motion was filed after a reinvestigation or is reasonable ground to do so. x x x.
upon instructions of the Secretary of Justice who reviewed the Aggrieved, petitioner moved for reconsideration of the said
Order, arguing that the November 20, 2003 OP-QC resolution
records of the investigation.
has not yet attained finality, considering that the same was the
In order therefor to avoid such a situation whereby the opinion subject of a Petition for Review filed before the Department of
of the Secretary of Justice who reviewed the action of the fiscal Justice (DOJ).[12]The RTC deferred action on the said motion
may be disregarded by the trial court, the Secretary of Justice to await the resolution of the DOJ.[13]
should, as far as practicable, refrain from entertaining a petition The Secretary of Justice promulgated his resolution
for review or appeal from the action of the fiscal, when the reversing and setting aside the OP-QCs November 20, 2003
complaint or information has already been filed in Court. The resolution, and directing the latter to refile the earlier
Information for libel.[14]
matter should be left entirely for the determination of the
On October 24, 2006, the RTC issued its first assailed Order
Court.
granting petitioners motion for reconsideration, conformably
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. with the resolution of the DOJ Secretary
Respondents moved for reconsideration, but the motion
was denied in the RTCs second assailed Order.
46. CEREZO VS PEOPLE (6/1/2011)
PRINCIPLE: ISSUE: Whether or not the judge is bound by the recommendation
of the prosecutor and the ruling of the secretary of justice?
 Well-entrenched is the rule that once a case is filed
with the court, any disposition of it rests on the Our Ruling
sound discretion of the court. In thus resolving a
motion to dismiss a case or to withdraw an NO.
Information, the trial court should not rely solely
and merely on the findings of the public prosecutor Well-entrenched is the rule that once a case is filed with the
or the Secretary of Justice.[20] It is the courts court, any disposition of it rests on the sound discretion of the
bounden duty to assess independently the merits court. In thus resolving a motion to dismiss a case or to
of the motion, and this assessment must be withdraw an Information, the trial court should not rely solely
embodied in a written order disposing of the and merely on the findings of the public prosecutor or the
motion.[21] Secretary of Justice.[20] It is the courts bounden duty to assess
independently the merits of the motion, and this assessment
The Facts must be embodied in a written order disposing of the
motion.[21] While the recommendation of the prosecutor or the
Joseph Cerezo filed a complaint for libel against respondents ruling of the Secretary of Justice is persuasive, it is not binding
Juliet Yaneza, Pablo Abunda, Jr., and Vicente Afulugencia on courts.
(respondents), as well as Oscar Mapalo (Mapalo).[5] In this case, it is obvious from the March 17, 2004 Order of the
Finding probable cause to indict respondents,[6] the RTC, dismissing the criminal case, that the RTC judge failed to
Quezon City Prosecutors Office (OP-QC) filed the make his own determination of whether or not there was
corresponding Information against them before the RTC.[7] a prima facie case to hold respondents for trial. He failed to
make an independent evaluation or assessment of the merits of

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


40
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

the case. The RTC judge blindly relied on the manifestation and deemed completed. All that is required is that the respondent
recommendation of the prosecutor when he should have been be given the opportunity to submit counter-affidavits if he is so
more circumspect and judicious in resolving the Motion to minded.
Dismiss and Withdraw Information especially so when the
prosecution appeared to be uncertain, undecided, and 2. What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and
irresolute on whether to indict respondents. personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of
The same holds true with respect to the October 24, 2006 the existence of probable cause. In satisfying himself of the
Order, which reinstated the case. The RTC judge failed to make existence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of
a separate evaluation and merely awaited the resolution of the arrest, the judge is not required to personally examine the
DOJ Secretary. This is evident from the general tenor of the complainant and his witnesses. Following established doctrine
Order and highlighted in the following portion thereof: and procedure, he shall: (1) personally evaluate the report and
the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the
As discussed during the hearing of the Motion for existence of probable cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a
Reconsideration, the Court will resolve it depending on the warrant of arrest; or (2) if on the basis thereof he finds no
outcome of the Petition for Review. Considering the findings of probable cause, he may disregard the fiscal's report and require
the Department of Justice reversing the resolution of the City the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him
Prosecutor, the Court gives favorable action to the Motion for in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of probable cause.
Reconsideration.[22]
By relying solely on the manifestation of the public prosecutor
and the resolution of the DOJ Secretary, the trial court abdicated 49. OCAMPO VS ABANDO (2/11/2014)
its judicial power and refused to perform a positive duty
Principle:
enjoined by law. The said Orders were thus stained with grave
abuse of discretion and violated the complainants right to due  A preliminary investigation is "not a casual affair." It is
process. They were void, had no legal standing, and produced conducted to protect the innocent from the
no effect whatsoever.[23] embarrassment, expense and anxiety of a public trial.
While the right to have a preliminary investigation
before trial is statutory rather than constitutional, it is
47. AGCAOILI VS COLINA (240 SCRA 482) a substantive right and a component of due process in
(NOT FOUND) the administration of criminal justice.
 Probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest
has been defined as "such facts and circumstances
which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent
48. SOLIVEN VS MAKASIAR (11/14/1988)
man to believe that an offense has been committed by
Principal issues: the person sought to be arrested."
Facts:
(1) whether or not petitioners were denied due process when
information for libel were filed against them although the
Police Chief Inspector George L. Almaden of the PNP Regional
finding of the existence of a prima facie case was still under Office 8 and Staff Judge Advocate Army Captain Tiu of the 8th
review by the Secretary of Justice and, subsequently, by the Infantry Division of the Philippine Army sent 12 undated letters
President; to the Provincial Prosecutor of Leyte through Assistant
Provincial Prosecutor Vivero. The letters requested
(2) whether or not the constitutional rights of Beltran were
appropriate legal action on 12 complaint-affidavits attached
violated when respondent RTC judge issued a warrant for his
therewith accusing 71 named members of the CPP/NPA/NDFP
arrest without personally examining the complainant and the
of murder, including petitioners herein along with several other
witnesses, if any, to determine probable cause
unnamed members.
Principles:
On the basis of the 12 letters and their attachments, Prosecutor
1. The allegation of denial of due process of law in the Vivero issued a subpoena requiring, among others, petitioners
preliminary investigation is negated by the fact that instead of to submit their counter-affidavits and those of their witnesses.
submitting his counter- affidavits, he filed a "Motion to Declare Petitioner Ocampo submitted his counter-affidavit. Petitioners
Proceedings Closed," in effect waiving his right to refute the Echanis and Baylosis did not file counter-affidavits because
complaint by filing counter-affidavits. Due process of law does they were allegedly not served the copy of the complaint and
not require that the respondent in a criminal case actually file the attached documents or evidence. Counsel of petitioner
his counter-affidavits before the preliminary investigation is Ladlad made a formal entry of appearance on 8 December 2006
during the preliminary investigation. However, petitioner

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


41
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

Ladlad did not file a counter-affidavit because he was allegedly Facts:


not served a subpoena.
By letter of March 7, 20051 addressed to the Court
On 6 March 2007, Judge Abando issued an Order finding Administrator which was received by the Office of the Court
probable cause "in the commission by all mentioned accused of Administrator (OCA) on March 14, 2005, Sandra Mino
the crime charged." He ordered the issuance of warrants of (complainant) charged Judge Donato Sotero A. Navarro
arrest against them with no recommended bail for their (respondent), Presiding Judge of Branch 6 of the Municipal
temporary liberty. Trial Court in Cities in Cebu City, with gross inexcusable
negligence arising from his failure to issue a warrant of arrest,
Issue: WON Petitioners were accorded due process during within the period prescribed by the Rules of Court, in Criminal
preliminary investigation and in the issuance of the warrants of Case No. 124511-R, People of the Philippines v. Allan Arcilla, for
arrest. Attempted Homicide.

Held: It appears that the above-said criminal case was raffled to the
sala of respondent on October 21, 2003. Despite repeated
A preliminary investigation is "not a casual affair." It is requests for the issuance of a warrant for the arrest of the
conducted to protect the innocent from the embarrassment, accused, respondent did not grant the same.
expense and anxiety of a public trial. While the right to have a
preliminary investigation before trial is statutory rather than After ninety seven (97) days from the raffling of the case to his
constitutional, it is a substantive right and a component of due sala or on February 5, 2004, respondent issued an Order2
process in the administration of criminal justice. declaring that on the basis of the affidavits of the offended party
and his witness, "the accused may actually be charged only with
Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that "no search Grave Threats, as there is no probable cause to believe that the
warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable accused had acted with intent to kill, not having persisted in his
cause to be determined personally by the judge after threat against the offended party."
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and
the witnesses he may produce." Respondent accordingly ordered the remand of the record of
the case to the Office of the City Prosecutor "so that the
Probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest has been information may be amended to reflect the proper crime."
defined as "such facts and circumstances which would lead a
reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense Issue: WON judges are authorized to the proper crime that the
has been committed by the person sought to be arrested." accused should be charged with.
Although the Constitution provides that probable cause shall be
determined by the judge after an examination under oath or an Held:
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses, we have
ruled that a hearing is not necessary for the determination No. SEC. 6. When warrant of arrest may issue. – (a) By the
thereof. In fact, the judge’s personal examination of the Regional Trial Court. – Within ten (10) days from the filing of
complainant and the witnesses is not mandatory and the compliant or information, the judge shall personally
indispensable for determining the aptness of issuing a warrant evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting
of arrest. evidence. He may immediately dismiss the case if the evidence
on record fails to establish probable cause. If he finds probable
cause, he shall issue a warrant of arrest, or a commitment order
if the accused has already been arrested pursuant to a warrant
50. MINO VS NAVARRO (8/28/2007) issued by the judge who conducted the preliminary
Principle: investigation or when the complaint or information was filed
pursuant to [S]ection 7 of this Rule. In case of doubt on the
 When the preliminary investigation was conducted by
existence of probable cause, the judge may order the
the prosecutor, the judge has three options after the
prosecution to present additional evidence within five (5) days
filing of the information and upon evaluation of the from notice and the issue must be resolved by the court within
prosecutor’s resolution and its supporting evidence.
thirty (30) days from the filing of the complaint or information.
He/she may (a) dismiss the case, (b) issue a warrant
of arrest or a commitment order, as the case may be, On the issue of downgrading the crime charged from attempted
against the accused, or (c) require the prosecution to homicide to grave threats, respondent judge manifested
submit additional evidence to support the existence of ignorance of the rule mentioned above. When the preliminary
probable cause. investigation was conducted by the prosecutor, the judge has
three options after the filing of the information and upon

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


42
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

evaluation of the prosecutor’s resolution and its supporting The court discharged Rusia as a state witness.
evidence. He/she may (a) dismiss the case, (b) issue a warrant
of arrest or a commitment order, as the case may be, against the On the last day for the cross examination of Rusia, Judge
accused, or (c) require the prosecution to submit additional Ocampo provisionally terminated the cross-examination due to
evidence to support the existence of probable cause. Nowhere the report that there was an attempt to bribe him.
in the rule was the judge authorized to determine the proper The defense lawyers moved for the inhibition of Judge Ocampo.
crime that the accused should be charged with. The options When he informed the defense lawyers that he would not
given to the judge are exclusive, and preclude him/her from
inhibit since he found no just and valid reasons, the defense
interfering with the discretion of the public prosecutor in
lawyers withdrew en masse. For these reason, Judge Ocampo
evaluating the offense charged.
held them guilty of direct contempt.
On August 26,1998, the defense lawyers filed their motion to
51. LEVISTE ALAMEDA (G.R. 182677 withdraw as lawyers for the appellants. Thus, the appellants
8/3/2010) moved for postponement of the hearing for several weeks to
enable them to hire the services of new counsel. The trial court
denied the motion on the ground that it could no longer delay
the hearing of the cases and directed the Public Attorney’s
IV. RULE 112 (PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION) Office to act as counsel de officio.
The appellants were convicted.
52. LARRANAGA VS CA (287 SCRA 581)

ISSUES: Whether or not the right to counsel of the appellants


FACTS: was violated when the trial court appointed counsel de officio?
On the night of July 16,1997, sisters Marijoy and Jacqueline Whether or not the right of the appellants to confront
Chiong, failed to come home on the expected time. Immediately, and cross examine the prosecution witnesses was violated?
at 5;00 o’clock in the morning, her family started to search for
her daughters, but there was no trace of them. Whether or not Rusia is considered the most-guilty
considering he admitted in open court that he raped Jacqueline
Meanwhile, in the morning of July 18,1997 , a certain Rudy Chiong?
Lasaga reported to the police that a young woman was found
dead at the foot of a cliff in Tan.awan Carcar Cebu. The police Whether or not the conviction of Rusia of third degree
found a dead woman lying on the ground. Attached to her left burglary in Minessotta renders his testimony inadmissible?
wrist was a handcuff. Her face and neck were covered with RULING:
masking tape.
No. The appointment of counsel de officio under such
On May 8, 1998, or after almost ten months, the mystery that circumstance is not proscribed by the Constitution. The choice
engulfed the disappearance of Marijoy and Jacqueline was of counsel by the accused in a criminal prosecution is not a
resolved. Davidson Rusia, admitted before the police having plenary one. If the chosen counsel deliberately makes himself
participated in the abduction of the sisters. scarce, the trial court is not precluded form appointing counsel
Rusia testified before the trial court how the crimes were de officio counsel whom it considers competent and
committed and identified all the appellants as the perpetrators. independent to enable the trial court to proceed until the
counsel of choice enters his appearance. Otherwise, the pace of
Against the foregoing facts and circumstances, the appellants a criminal prosecution will be entirely dictated by the accused
raised the defense of alibi. to the detriment of the eventual resolution of the case.
Concerning state witness Rusia, on August 7, 1998, when the Certainly, it is wrong for these lawyers to abandon
prosecution moved that he be discharged as an accused for the appellants in the proceeding before the trial court and
purpose of utilizing him as a state witness, the appellants unceasingly represent them in the appellate courts. Indeed, in
opposed the motion on the ground the he does not qualify as a doing so, they made a mockery of judicial process and certainly
state witness under Section, Rule119 of the Revised Rules of delayed the hearing before the court below.
Court as he was convicted of third degree burglary in
Minessotta and considering he admitted in open court that he
raped Jacqueline Chiong.

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


43
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

No. For one, it is not true that they were not given illegal arrest or the lack of or irregular preliminary
sufficient opportunity to cross-examine Rusia. All of appellant’s investigation applies only if he voluntarily enters his
counsel de parte had a fair share of time in grilling Rusia plea and participates during trial, without previously
concerning his background to the kidnapping. invoking his objections thereto. There must be clear
Considering that appellants had several lawyers, it and convincing proof that petitioner had an actual
was just proper for the trial court to impose a time limit on their intention to relinquish his right to question the
cross examination so as not to waste its time on repetitive existence of probable cause. When the only proof of
questioning. intention rests on what a party does, his act should be
No. It bears stressing that appellants were charged so manifestly consistent with, and indicative of, an
with kidnapping and illegal detention. Thus, Rusia’s admission intent to voluntarily and unequivocally relinquish the
that he raped Jacqueline does not make him the most-guilty of particular right that no other explanation of his
the crimes charged. Moreover, far from being the mastermind, conduct is possible
his participation, as shown by the chronology of events, was
limited to that of an oblivious follower who simply joined the b. Preliminary Investigation; Inquest; Words and
ride as the commission of the crimes progressed. Phrases; Inquest is defined as an informal and
Rusia retained his passive stance as Rowen and summary investigation conducted by a public
Josman grabbed Marijoy and Jacqueline at the waiting shed of prosecutor in criminal cases involving persons
Ayala Center. He just remained seated beside the driver’s seat arrested and detained without the benefit of a
not aiding Rowen and Josman in abducting the Chiong sisters. warrant of arres issued by the court for the purpose
Inside the car, it was Rowen who punched and handcuffed the of determining whether said persons should remain
Chiong sisters. At the safehouse of Josman Aznar Group, Rusia under custody and correspondingly be charged in
stayed at the living room while the appellants molested the court - A preliminary investigation is required before
Chiong sisters on separate rooms. And Rusia did not even know the filing of a complaint or information for an offense
what ultimately happened to Jacqueline as he was the first to where the penalty prescribed by law is at least four
leave the group. years, two months and one day without regard to fine.
As an exception, the rules provide that there is no need
for a preliminary investigation in cases of a lawful
No. The court held in People vs De Guzman as cited in
arrest without a warrant involving such type of
this case, that although the trial court may have erred in
discharging the accused, such error would not affect the offense, so long as an inquest, where available, has
competency and the quality of the testimony of the accused. been conducted. Inquest is defined as an informal and
summary investigation conducted by a public
The order for the discharge may only be recalled in prosecutor in criminal cases involving persons
one instance, which is when he subsequently failed or refused
arrested and detained without the benefit of a warrant
to testify against his co-accused.
of arrest issued by the court for the purpose of
determining whether said persons should remain
53. LEVISTE VS ALAMEDA (As To Right To under custody and correspondingly be charged in
Reinvestigation) court.

PRINCIPLES: c. Before the filing of the complaint or information in


court, the private complainant may proceed in
a. Criminal Procedure; Arraignment; Bail; Waiver; An coordinating with the arresting officer and the
accused, in appluing for bail, does not waive his inquest officer during the latter’s conduct of
right t o challenge the regularity of the inquest, while the arrested person has the option to
reinvestiagation of the chage against him, the avail of a 15-day preliminary investigation,
validity of the admission of the Amended provided he duly signs a waiver of any objections
Information, where he vigorously raised them prior against delay in his delivery to the proper judicial
to his arraignment; The principle that the accused is authorities under Article 125 of the Revised Penal
precluded after arraignment from questioning the Code; The accelerated process of inquest, owing to

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


44
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

its summary nature and the attendant risk of actions commenced by a complaint or information
running against Article 125, ends with either the shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of
prompt filing of an information in court or the the public prosecutor. The private complainant in a
immediate release of the arrested person-the rules criminal case is merely a witness and not a party to the
on inquest do not provide for a motion for case and cannot, by himself, ask for the reinvestigation
recondsideration. of the case after the information had been filed in
court, the proper party for that being the public
d. In cases subject of inquest, the private party should prosecutor who has the control of the prosecution of
first avail of a preliminary investigation or the case. Thus, in cases where the private complainant
reinvestigation, if any, before elevating the matter is allowed to intervene by counsel in the criminal
to the Department of Justice Secretary - Contrary to action and is granted the authority to prosecute, the
petitioners position that private complainant should private complainant, by counsel and with the
have appealed to the DOJ Secretary, such remedy is not conformity of the public prosecutor, can file a motion
immediately available in cases subject of inquest. for reinvestigation.
Noteworthy is the proviso that the appeal to the DOJ
Secretary is by petition by a proper party under such f. Amendment of Information; An information which
rules as the Department of Justice may prescribe. The is void ab initio cannot be amended to obviate a
rule referred to is the 2000 National Prosecution ground for quashal; An amendment which operates
Service Rule on Appeal, Section 1 of which provides to vest jurisdiction upon the trial court is likewise
that the Rule shall apply to appeals from resolutions x impermissible. - Before the accused enters a plea, a
x x in cases subject of preliminary investigation/ formal or substantial amendment of the complaint or
reinvestigation. In cases subject of inquest, therefore, information may be made without leave of court. After
the private party should first avail of a preliminary the entry of a plea, only a formal amendment may be
investigation or reinvestigation, if any, before made but with leave of court and only if it does not
elevating the matter to the DOJ Secretary. In case the prejudice the rights of the accused. After arraignment,
inquest proceedings yield no probable cause, the a substantial amendment is proscribed except if the
private complainant may pursue the case through the same is beneficial to the accused. It must be clarified
regular course of a preliminary investigation though that not all defects in an information are
curable by amendment prior to entry of plea. An
e. Reinvestigation; Once a complaint or information is information which is void ab initio cannot be amended
filed in court, the accued is provided with another to obviate a ground for quashal. An amendment which
opportunity to ask for a preliminary investigation operates to vest jurisdiction upon the trial court is
within five days from the time he learns of its filing, likewise impermissible.
while a private complainant can move for
reinvestigation in cases he is allowed to intervene g. Any remedial measure springing from the
by counsel in the criminal action and is granted the reinvestigation- be it a complete disposition or an
authority to prosecute, with the conformity of the intermediate modification of the charge – is
prosecutor – ONCE A COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION eventually addressed to the sound discretion of the
IS FILED IN COURT, the rules yet provide the accused trial court, which must make an independent
with another opportunity to ask for a preliminary evaluation or assessment of the merits of the case. -
investigation within five days from the time he learns Considering the general rule that an information may
of its filing. The Rules of Court and the New Rules on be amended even in substance and even without leave
Inquest are silent, however, on whether the private of court at any time before entry of plea, does it mean
complainant could invoke, as respondent heirs of the that the conduct of a reinvestigation at that stage is a
victim did in the present case, a similar right to ask for mere superfluity? It is not. Any remedial measure
a reinvestigation. The Court holds that the private springing from the reinvestigation be it a complete
complainant can move for reinvestigation, subject to disposition or an intermediate modification of the
and in light of the ensuing disquisition. All criminal charge is eventually addressed to the sound discretion

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


45
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

of the trial court, which must make an independent of the accused; and (5) an amendment that merely
evaluation or assessment of the merits of the case. adds specifications to eliminate vagueness in the
Since the trial court would ultimately make the information and not to introduce new and material
determination on the proposed course of action, it is facts, and merely states with additional precision
for the prosecution to consider whether a something which is already contained in the original
reinvestigation is necessary to adduce and review the information and which adds nothing essential for
evidence for purposes of buttressing the appropriate conviction for the crime charged. The test as to
motion to be filed in court. whether a defendant is prejudiced by the amendment
is whether a defense under the information as it
h. Due process of law demands that no substantial originally stood would be available after the
amendment of an information may be admitted amendment is made, and whether any evidence
without conducting another or a new preliminary defendant might have would be equally applicable to
investigation - Reinvestigation is required in cases the information in the one form as in the other. An
involving a substantial amendment of the information. amendment to an information which does not change
Due process of law demands that no substantial the nature of the crime alleged therein does not affect
amendment of an information may be admitted the essence of the offense or cause surprise or deprive
without conducting another or a new preliminary the accused of an opportunity to meet the new
investigation. In Matalam v. The 2nd Division of the averment had each been held to be one of form and not
Sandiganbayan, the Court ruled that a substantial of substance.
amendment in an information entitles an accused to
another preliminary investigation, unless the j. There is no substantial distinction between a
amended information contains a charge related to or preliminary investigation and a reinvestigation
is included in the original Information. since both are conducted in the same manner and
for the same objective of determining whether there
i. The amendment of the Information from homicide exists sufficient ground to engender a weel-founded
to murder is considered a substantial amendment, belief that a crime has been committed and the
which would make it not just a right but a duty of respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be
the prosecution to ask for a preliminary held for trial. - Considering that another or a new
investigation. The question to be resolved is whether preliminary investigation is required, the fact that
the amendment of the Information from homicide to what was conducted in the present case was a
murder is considered a substantial amendment, which reinvestigation does not invalidate the substantial
would make it not just a right but a duty of the amendment of the Information. There is no substantial
prosecution to ask for a preliminary investigation. The distinction between a preliminary investigation and a
Court answers in the affirmative.A substantial reinvestigation since both are conducted in the same
amendment consists of the recital of facts manner and for the same objective of determining
constituting the offense charged and whether there exists sufficient ground to engender a
determinative of the jurisdiction of the court. All well-founded belief that a crime has been committed
other matters are merely of form. The following have and the respondent is probably guilty thereof and
been held to be mere formal amendments: (1) new should be held for trial. What is essential is that
allegations which relate only to the range of the petitioner was placed on guard to defend himself from
penalty that the court might impose in the event of the charge of murder after the claimed circumstances
conviction; (2) an amendment which does not charge were made known to him as early as the first motion.
another offense different or distinct from that charged
in the original one; (3) additional allegations which do k. The rules do not even require, as a condition sine
not alter the prosecutions theory of the case so as to qua non to the validity of a preliminary
cause surprise to the accused and affect the form of investigation, the presence of the respondent as
defense he has or will assume; (4) an amendment long as efforts to reach him were made an
which does not adversely affect any substantial right

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


46
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

opportunity to controvert the complainant’s 112 of the Rules of Court outlines the procedure to be
evidence was accorded him. followed by the RTC.

l. Quantum of Proof; Bail; The standard of strong n. Judicial Determination of Probable Cause; To move
evidence of guilt which is sufficient to deny bail to the court to conduct a judicial determination of
an accused is markedly higher than the standard of probable cause is a mere superfluity, for with or
judicial probable cause which is sufficient to initiate without such motion, the judge is duty-bound to
a criminal case. That the evidence of guilt was not personally evaluate the resolution of the public
strong as subsequently assessed in the bail hearings prosecutor and the supporting evidence. - To move
does not affect the prior determination of probable the court to conduct a judicial determination of
cause because, as the appellate court correctly stated, probable cause is a mere superfluity, for with or
the standard of strong evidence of guilt which is without such motion, the judge is duty-bound to
sufficient to deny bail to an accused is markedly higher personally evaluate the resolution of the public
than the standard of judicial probable cause which is prosecutor and the supporting evidence. In fact, the
sufficient to initiate a criminal case. task of the presiding judge when the Information is
filed with the court is first and foremost to determine
m. Probable cause; There are two kinds of the existence or non-existence of probable cause for
determination of probable cause; executive and the arrest of the accused. What the Constitution
judicial; The executive determination of probable underscores is the exclusive and personal
cuase is one made during preliminary responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of
investigation; The judicial determination of the existence of probable cause. But the judge is not
probable cause is one made by the judge to required to personally examine the complainant
ascertain whether a warrant of arrest should be and his witnesses. Following established doctrine
issued against the accused. - There are two kinds of and procedure, he shall (1) personally evaluate the
determination of probable cause: executive and report and the supporting documents submitted by
judicial. The executive determination of probable the prosecutor regarding the existence of probable
cause is one made during preliminary investigation. It cause, and on the basis thereof, he may already make
is a function that properly pertains to the public a personal determination of the existence of probable
prosecutor who is given a broad discretion to cause; and (2) if he is not satisfied that probable cause
determine whether probable cause exists and to exists, he may disregard the prosecutors report and
charge those whom he believes to have committed the require the submission of supporting affidavits of
crime as defined by law and thus should be held for witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to
trial. Otherwise stated, such official has the quasi- the existence of probable cause.
judicial authority to determine whether or not a
criminal case must be filed in court. Whether that o. The accused cannot, as a matter of right, insist on a
function has been correctly discharged by the public hearing for judicial determination of probable
prosecutor, i.e., whether he has made a correct cause - The rules do not require cases to be set for
ascertainment of the existence of probable cause in a hearing to determine probable cause for the issuance
case, is a matter that the trial court itself does not and of a warrant of arrest of the accused before any
may not be compelled to pass upon. The judicial warrant may be issued. Petitioner thus cannot, as a
determination of probable cause is one made by the matter of right, insist on a hearing for judicial
judge to ascertain whether a warrant of arrest should determination of probable cause. Certainly, petitioner
be issued against the accused. The judge must satisfy cannot determine beforehand how cursory or
himself that based on the evidence submitted, there is exhaustive the [judge's] examination of the records
necessity for placing the accused under custody in should be [since t]he extent of the judges examination
order not to frustrate the ends of justice. If the judge depends on the exercise of his sound discretion as the
finds no probable cause, the judge cannot be forced to circumstances of the case require. In one case, the
issue the arrest warrant. Paragraph (a), Section 5 Rule Court emphatically stated: The periods provided in the

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


47
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure are mandatory, proper offense and submit a recommendation within 30 days
and as such, the judge must determine the presence or from its inception, inter alia; and (2) Order of January 31,
absence of probable cause within such periods. The 2007[9] denying reconsideration of the first order. Petitioner
assailed these orders via certiorari and prohibition before the
Sandiganbayans determination of probable cause is
Court of Appeals. (RULE 65)
made ex parte and is summary in nature, not
adversarial. The Judge should not be stymied and Meantime, petitioner filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Manifestation
distracted from his determination of probable and Motion before the trial court to defer acting on the public
cause by needless motions for determination of prosecutors recommendation on the proper offense until after
probable cause filed by the accused. the appellate court resolves his application for injunctive
reliefs, or alternatively, to grant him time to comment on the
prosecutors recommendation and thereafter set a hearing for
p. Preliminary Investigation; Reinvestigation; It is not
the judicial determination of probable cause
material that no new matter or evidence was
presented during the reinvestigation of the case – The trial court nonetheless issued the other assailed orders,
reinvestigation, as the word itself implies, is merely a viz: (1) Order of February 7, 2007[12] that admitted the
repeat investigation of the case which is simply a chance Amended Information[13] for murder and directed the issuance
for the prosecutor to review and re-evaluate its findings of a warrant of arrest; and (2) Order of February 8,
and the evidence already submitted. - Petitioner 2007[14] which set the arraignment on February 13,
2007. Petitioner questioned these two orders via supplemental
proceeds to discuss at length evidentiary matters,
petition before the appellate court.
arguing that no circumstances exist that would qualify
the crime from homicide to murder. The allegation of Records show that the arraignment pushed through during
lack of substantial or material new evidence deserves which petitioner refused to plead, drawing the trial court to
no credence, because new pieces of evidence are not enter a plea of not guilty for him.
prerequisites for a valid conduct of reinvestigation. It
Prior to arraignment or on February 23, 2007, petitioner filed an
is not material that no new matter or evidence was
Urgent Application for Admission to Bail Ex Abundanti Cautela
presented during the reinvestigation of the case. It which the trial court, after hearings thereon, granted by Order
should be stressed that reinvestigation, as the word of May 21, 2007, it finding that the evidence of guilt for the crime
itself implies, is merely a repeat investigation of the of murder is not strong. It accordingly allowed petitioner to post
case. New matters or evidence are not prerequisites bail in the amount for his provisional liberty.
for a reinvestigation, which is simply a chance for the
prosecutor to review and re-evaluate its findings and The trial court, absent any writ of preliminary injunction from
the appellate court, went on to try petitioner under the Amended
the evidence already submitted.
Information. By Decision of January 14, 2009, the trial court
found petitioner guilty of homicide. From the Decision,
FACTS: petitioner filed an appeal to the appellate court, docketed as CA-
G.R. CR No. 32159, during the pendency of which he filed an
Petitioner was, by Information of January 16, 2007, charged urgent application for admission to bail pending appeal. The
with homicide on January 12, 2007 before the Regional Trial appellate court denied petitioners application which this Court,
Court to which the presided by Judge Elmo Alameda, who in G.R. No. 189122, affirmed by Decision of March 17, 2010.
forthwith issued a commitment order against petitioner who
was placed under police custody while confined at The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) later argued that the
the Makati Medical Center. present petition had been rendered moot since the
presentation of evidence, wherein petitioner actively
The private complainants-heirs of filed, with the conformity of participated, had been concluded.[18]
the public prosecutor, an Urgent Omnibus Motion praying, inter
alia, for the deferment of the proceedings to allow the public ISSUES:
prosecutor to re-examine the evidence on record or to conduct
a reinvestigation to determine the proper offense. a. WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER IS DEEMED TO HAVE
WAIVED HIS OBJECTIONS OVER THE VALIDITY OF
The RTC thereafter issued the (1) Order of January 24, 2007 THE REINVESTIGATION AND THE ISSUANCE OF
deferring petitioners arraignment and allowing the WARRANT OF ARREST WHEN THE COURT ENTERED
prosecution to conduct a reinvestigation to determine the A PLEA OF NOT GUILTY FOR HIM.

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


48
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

b. WHETHER PRIVATE RESPONDENT HAVE THE RIGHT resolution by the appellate court, thus prompting the trial court
TO CAUSE THE REINVESTIGATION OF THE CRIMINAL to enter a plea of not guilty for him.
CASE WHEN THE CRIMINAL INFORMATION HAD
ALREADY BEEN FILED WITH THE LOWER COURT. The principle that the accused is precluded after arraignment
c. WHETHER THE AMENDMENT OF THE INFORMATION from questioning the illegal arrest or the lack of or irregular
FROM THE ORIGINAL CHARGE OF HOMICIDE TO preliminary investigation applies only if
MURDER IS A SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT he voluntarily enters his plea and participates during trial,
d. WHETHER THE AMENDED INFORMATION, THE without previously invoking his objections thereto. There
ISSUING of A WARRANT OF ARREST, AND SETTING must be clear and convincing proof that petitioner had
OF THE CASE FOR ARRAIGNMENT IS VALID, an actual intention to relinquish his right to question the
CONSIDERING THAT THE VALIDITY AND LEGALITY existence of probable cause.
OF HIS ORDERS DATED 24 AND 31 JANUARY 2007,
WHICH LED TO THE QUESTIONABLE From the given circumstances, the Court cannot reasonably
REINVESTIGATION AND ILLEGAL AMENDED infer a valid waiver on the part of petitioner to preclude him
INFORMATION, ARE YET TO BE RESOLVED BY THIS from obtaining a definite resolution of the objections he so
HONORABLE COURT timely invoked. Other than its allegation of active participation,
e. WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR the OSG offered no clear and convincing proof that petitioners
JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE participation in the trial was unconditional with the intent to
SHOULD BE GRANTED BECAUSE NO NEW EVIDENCE voluntarily and unequivocally abandon his petition. In
WAS PRESENTED DURING THE REEXAMINATION. fact, on January 26, 2010, petitioner still moved for the
early resolution of the present petition.
HELD:
The petition (questioning the validity of reexamination) is
Petitioner is not deemed to have now moot, however, in view of the trial courts rendition of
waived his objections when the judgment.
trial court entered a plea for his behalf.
The judgment convicting petitioner of homicide under the
Waiver on the part of the accused must be distinguished Amended Information for murder operates as a supervening
from mootness of the petition, for in the present case, event that mooted the present petition. Assuming that there
petitioner did not, by his active participation in the trial, waive is ground to annul the finding of probable cause for
his stated objections. murder, there is no practical use or value in abrogating the
concluded proceedings and retrying the case under the
Section 26, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court original Information for homicide just to arrive, more
provides: likely or even definitely, at the same conviction of
homicide. Mootness would have also set in had petitioner
SEC. 26. Bail not a bar to objections on illegal been convicted of murder, for proof beyond reasonable
arrest, lack of or irregular preliminary doubt, which is much higher than probable cause, would
investigation. An application for or admission have been established in that instance.)
to bail shall not bar the accused from
challenging the validity of his arrest or the Private Compalianant has the right
legality of the warrant issued therefor, or from to ask for a reexaminitaion.
assailing the regularity or questioning the
absence of a preliminary investigation of the (Guys, to further appreciate this case I am constrained to
charge against him, provided that he raises include the following discussion on the different remedies
them before entering his plea. The court shall available to the accused and complainant, before and after filing
resolve the matter as early as practicable but of the Information for cases subject to inquest)
not later than the start of the trial of the case.
A preliminary investigation is required before the filing of a
By applying for bail, petitioner did not waive his right complaint or information for an offense where the penalty
to challenge the regularity of the reinvestigation of the charge prescribed by law is at least four years, two months and one day
against him, the validity of the admission of the Amended without regard to fine. As an exception, the rules provide that
Information, and the legality of his arrest under the Amended there is no need for a preliminary investigation in cases of a
Information, as he vigorously raised them prior to his lawful arrest without a warrant involving such type of offense,
arraignment. During the arraignment, petitioner refused to so long as an inquest, where available, has been conducted.
enter his plea since the issues he raised were still pending

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


49
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

Inquest is defined as an informal and summary investigation The Court holds that the private complainant can move for
conducted by a public prosecutor in criminal cases involving reinvestigation, subject to and in light of the ensuing
persons arrested and detained without the benefit of a warrant disquisition.
of arrest issued by the court for the purpose of determining
whether said persons should remain under custody and All criminal actions commenced by a complaint or information
correspondingly be charged in court.[ shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the
public prosecutor. The private complainant in a criminal case is
BEFORE THE FILING OF COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION IN merely a witness and not a party to the case and cannot, by
COURT, the private complainant may proceed in coordinating himself, ask for the reinvestigation of the case after the
with the arresting officer and the inquest officer during the information had been filed in court, the proper party for that
latters conduct of inquest. Meanwhile, the arrested person has being the public prosecutor who has the control of the
the option to avail of a 15-day preliminary investigation, prosecution of the case. Thus, in cases where the private
provided he duly signs a waiver of any objection against delay complainant is allowed to intervene by counsel in the criminal
in his delivery to the proper judicial authorities under Article action, (RULES OF COURT, Rule 110, Sec. 16) and is granted the
125 of the Revised Penal Code. For obvious reasons, this authority to prosecute, the private complainant, by counsel and
remedy is not available to the private complainant since he with the conformity of the public prosecutor, can file a motion
cannot waive what he does not have. The benefit of the for reinvestigation.
provisions of Article 125, which requires the filing of a
complaint or information with the proper judicial authorities The prosecutions discretion is not boundless or infinite,
within the applicable period, belongs to the arrested person. however. The standing principle is that once an information is
filed in court, any remedial measure such as a reinvestigation
The accelerated process of inquest, owing to its summary must be addressed to the sound discretion of the
nature and the attendant risk of running against Article 125, court. Interestingly, petitioner supports this view. Indeed, the
ends with either the prompt filing of an information in court or Court ruled in one case that:
the immediate release of the arrested person. Notably, the rules
on inquest do not provide for a motion for reconsideration. The rule is now well settled that once
a complaint or information is filed in court,
Contrary to petitioner’s position that private complainant any disposition of the case, whether as to its
should have appealed to the DOJ Secretary, such remedy is not dismissal or the conviction or the acquittal of
immediately available in cases subject of inquest. the accused, rests in the sound discretion of
the court. Although the prosecutor retains the
Noteworthy is the proviso that the appeal to the DOJ Secretary direction and control of the prosecution of
is by petition by a proper party under such rules as the criminal cases even when the case is already
Department of Justice may prescribe. The rule referred to is the in court, he cannot impose his opinion upon
2000 National Prosecution Service Rule on Appeal, Section 1 of the tribunal. For while it is true that the
which provides that the Rule shall apply to appeals from prosecutor has the quasi-judicial discretion to
resolutions x x x in cases subject of preliminary determine whether or not a criminal case
investigation/ reinvestigation. In cases subject of inquest, should be filed in court, once the case had
therefore, the private party should first avail of a already been brought therein any disposition
preliminary investigation or reinvestigation, if any, before the prosecutor may deem proper thereafter
elevating the matter to the DOJ Secretary. should be addressed to the court for its
consideration and approval. The only
In case the inquest proceedings yield no probable cause, the qualification is that the action of the court
private complainant may pursue the case through the regular must not impair the substantial rights of the
course of a preliminary investigation. accused or the right of the People to due
process of law.
ONCE A COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION IS FILED IN COURT, xxxx
the rules yet provide the accused with another opportunity to
ask for a preliminary investigation within five days from the In such an instance, before a re-
time he learns of its filing. The Rules of Court and the New Rules investigation of the case may be conducted
on Inquest are silent, however, on whether the private by the public prosecutor, the permission or
complainant could invoke, as respondent heirs of the victim did consent of the court must be secured. If
in the present case, a similar right to ask for a reinvestigation. after such re-investigation the prosecution
finds a cogent basis to withdraw the
information or otherwise cause the dismissal

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


50
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

of the case, such proposed course of action (5) an amendment that merely adds specifications to eliminate
may be taken but shall likewise be addressed vagueness in the information and not to introduce new and
to the sound discretion of the court. material facts, and merely states with additional precision
something which is already contained in the original
Amendment of the Information information and which adds nothing essential for conviction for
from the original charge of homicide to murder the crime charged.
is a substantial amendment
The test as to whether a defendant is prejudiced by the
Since a reinvestigation may entail a modification of the criminal amendment is whether a defense under the information as
information as what happened in the present case, the Courts it originally stood would be available after the amendment
holding is bolstered by the rule on amendment of an is made, and whether any evidence defendant might have
information under Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court: would be equally applicable to the information in the one
xxx…A complaint or information may be amended, in form form as in the other. An amendment to an information which
or in substance, without leave of court, at any time before does not change the nature of the crime alleged therein does
the accused enters his plea…xxx not affect the essence of the offense or cause surprise or deprive
the accused of an opportunity to meet the new averment had
More importantly, reinvestigation is required in cases involving each been held to be one of form and not of substance.
a substantial amendment of the information. Due process of
law demands that no substantial amendment of an information Considering that another or a new preliminary investigation is
may be admitted without conducting another or a new required, the fact that what was conducted in the present case
preliminary investigation. In Matalam v. The 2nd Division of the was a reinvestigation does not invalidate the substantial
Sandiganbayan,[54] the Court ruled that a substantial amendment of the Information. There is no substantial
amendment in an information entitles an accused to another distinction between a preliminary investigation and a
preliminary investigation, unless the amended information reinvestigation since both are conducted in the same manner
contains a charge related to or is included in the original and for the same objective of determining whether there exists
Information. sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime
has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty
The question to be resolved is whether the amendment of the thereof and should be held for trial. What is essential is that
Information from homicide to murder is considered a petitioner was placed on guard to defend himself from the
substantial amendment, which would make it not just a right charge of murder after the claimed circumstances were made
but a duty of the prosecution to ask for a preliminary known to him as early as the first motion.
investigation.

The Court answers in the affirmative. Petition for certiorari shall not interrupt
the course of the principal case unless
A substantial amendment consists of the recital of facts a temporary retraining order
constituting the offense charged and determinative of the or a writ of preliminary injunction has been issued
jurisdiction of the court. All other matters are merely of form.
The Rules categorically state that the petition shall not
The following have been held to be mere formal amendments: interrupt the course of the principal case unless a temporary
retraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction has been
(1) new allegations which relate only to the range of the issued.[63] The appellate court, by Resolution
penalty that the court might impose in the event of conviction; of February 15, 2007,[64] denied petitioners application for a
temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary
(2) an amendment which does not charge another offense injunction. Supplementary efforts to seek injunctive reliefs
different or distinct from that charged in the original one; proved futile.[65] The appellate court thus did not err in finding
no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court when
(3) additional allegations which do not alter the prosecutions it proceeded with the case and eventually arraigned the
theory of the case so as to cause surprise to the accused and accused on March 21, 2007, there being no injunction order
affect the form of defense he has or will assume; from the appellate court. Moreover, petitioner opted to forego
appealing to the DOJ Secretary, a post-inquest remedy that was
(4) an amendment which does not adversely affect any available after the reinvestigation and which could have
substantial right of the accused; and suspended the arraignment.[66]

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


51
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

A hearing for judicial determination of appropriate incident to his arrest and that it erred in admitting
probable cause is not necessary the hand grenade as evidence since it was admissible because
it was a product of an unreasonable and illegal search.
The rules do not require cases to be set for hearing to determine
probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest of the Issue: WON the search and seizure conducted by the police was
accused before any warrant may be issued. Petitioner thus
valid.
cannot, as a matter of right, insist on a hearing for judicial
determination of probable cause. Certainly, petitioner cannot
Held:
determine beforehand how cursory or exhaustive the [judge's]
examination of the records should be since the extent of the
judges examination depends on the exercise of his sound The general rule as regards arrests, searches and seizures is
discretion as the circumstances of the case require. that a warrant is needed in order to validly effect the same. 31
The Constitutional prohibition against unreasonable arrests,
searches and seizures refers to those effected without a validly
New pieces of evidence are not prerequisites issued warrant, 32 subject to certain exceptions. As regards
for a valid conduct of reinvestigation valid warrantless arrests, these are found in Section 5, Rule 113
of the Rules of Court, which reads, in part:
The allegation of lack of substantial or material new
evidence deserves no credence, because new pieces of evidence Sec. 5. — Arrest, without warrant; when lawful — A peace
are not prerequisites for a valid conduct of reinvestigation. It is
officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a
not material that no new matter
or evidence was presented during the reinvestigation of the person:
case. It should be stressed that reinvestigation, as the word
itself implies, is merely a repeat investigation of the case. New (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
matters or evidence are not prerequisites for a reinvestigation, committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit
which is simply a chance for the prosecutor to review and re- an offense;
evaluate its findings and the evidence already submitted.
(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has
personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be
V. RULE 113 (ARREST) arrested has committed it; and

54. PEOPLE VS GIVERA (349 SCRA 513)  (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has
C/O RAMON escaped . . .
55. PEOPLE VS MENGOTE (210 SCRA 174) 
C/O RAMON A warrantless arrest under the circumstances contemplated
under Section 5(a) has been denominated as one "in flagrante
56. PEOPLE VS MALACAT (283 SCRA 159) delicto," while that under Section 5(b) has been described as a
Facts: "hot pursuit" arrest.

Petitioner was arrested for having in his possession a hand Turning to valid warrantless searches, they are limited to the
grenade after he was searched by a group of policemen when following: (1) customs searches; (2) search of moving vehicles;
he was said to be acting suspiciously when he was hanging (3) seizure of evidence in plain view; (4) consent searches; 33
around Plaza Miranda with his eyes moving fast together with (5) a search incidental to a lawful arrest;34 and (6) a "stop and
other Muslim-looking men. When the policemen approached frisk.’
the group of men, they scattered in all directions which
prompted the police to give chase and petitioner was then At the outset, we note that the trial court confused the concepts
apprehended and a search was made on his person. of a "stop-and-frisk" and of a search incidental to a lawful
arrest. These two types of warrantless searches differ in terms
He was then convicted under PD 1866 in the lower court. of the requisite quantum of proof before they may be validly
Hence, the present petition wherein petitioner contended that effected and in their allowable scope.
the lower court erred in holding that the search made on him
and the seizure of the hand grenade from him was an

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


52
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

In a search incidental to a lawful arrest, as the precedent arrest that mere suspicion or a hunch will not validate a "stop and
determines the validity of the incidental search, the legality of frisk." A genuine reason must exist, in light of the police officer's
the arrest is questioned in a large majority of these cases, e.g., experience and surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief
whether an arrest was merely used as a pretext for conducting that the person detained has weapons concealed about him.
a search. 36 In this instance, the law requires that there first be Finally, a "stop-and-frisk" serves a two-fold interest: (1) the
a lawful arrest before a search can be made — the process general interest of effective crime prevention and detection,
cannot be reversed. 37 At bottom, assuming a valid arrest, the which underlies the recognition that a police officer may, under
arresting officer may search the person of the arrestee and the appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner,
area within which the latter may reach for a weapon or for approach a person for purposes of investigating possible
evidence to destroy, and seize any money or property found criminal behavior even without probable cause; and (2) the
which was used in the commission of the crime, or the fruit of more pressing interest of safety and self-preservation which
the crime, or that which may be used as evidence, or which permit the police officer to take steps to assure himself that the
might furnish the arrestee with the means of escaping or person with whom he deals is not armed with a deadly weapon
committing violence. that could unexpectedly and fatally be used against the police
officer.
Here, there could have been no valid in flagrante delicto or hot
pursuit arrest preceding the search in light of the lack of Here, here are at least three (3) reasons why the stop-and-frisk
personal knowledge on the part of Yu, the arresting officer, or was invalid:
an overt physical act, on the part of petitioner, indicating that a
crime had just been committed, was being committed or was First, we harbor grave doubts as to Yus claim that petitioner
going to be committed.We now proceed to the justification for was a member of the group which attempted to bomb Plaza
and allowable scope of a "stop-and-frisk" as a "limited Miranda two days earlier.This claim is neither supported by any
protective search of outer clothing for weapons," as laid down police report or record nor corroborated by any other police
in Terry, thus: officer who allegedly chased that group. Aside from impairing
Yu's credibility as a witness, this likewise diminishes the
We merely hold today that where a probability that a genuine reason existed so as to arrest and
police officer observes unusual conduct search petitioner. If only to further tarnish the credibility of
which leads him reasonably to conclude Yu's testimony, contrary to his claim that petitioner and his
in light of his experience that criminal companions had to be chased before being apprehended, the
activity may be afoot and that the affidavit of arrest (Exh. "A") expressly declares otherwise, i.e.,
persons with whom he is dealing may be upon arrival of five (5) other police officers, petitioner and his
armed and presently dangerous, where companions were "immediately collared."
in the course of investigating this
behavior he identifies himself as a Second, there was nothing in petitioners behavior or conduct
policeman and makes reasonable which could have reasonably elicited even mere suspicion
inquiries, and where nothing in the other than that his eyes were moving very fast an observation
initial stages of the encounter serves to which leaves us incredulous since Yu and his teammates were
dispel his reasonable fear for his own or nowhere near petitioner and it was already 6:30 p.m., thus
others' safety, he is entitled for the presumably dusk. Petitioner and his companions were merely
protection of himself and others in the standing at the corner and were not creating any commotion or
area to conduct a carefully limited search trouble, as Yu explicitly declared on cross-examination
of the outer clothing of such persons in
Third, there was at all no ground, probable or otherwise, to
an attempt to discover weapons which
believe that petitioner was armed with a deadly weapon. None
might be used to assault him. Such a
was visible to Yu, for as he admitted, the alleged grenade was
search is a reasonable search under the
discovered inside the front waistline of petitioner, and from all
Fourth Amendment . .
indications as to the distance between Yu and petitioner, any
Other notable points of Terry are that while probable cause is telltale bulge, assuming that petitioner was indeed hiding a
not required to conduct a "stop and frisk," it nevertheless holds

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


53
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

grenade, could not have been visible to Yu. In fact, as noted by alleged that he was arbitrarily arrested and immediately
the trial court: handcuffed. His bag was confiscated without a search warrant.
At the PC headquarters, he was manhandled to force him to
When the policemen approached the accused and his admit he was carrying the marijuana, the investigator hitting
companions, they were not yet aware that a handgrenade was him with a piece of wood in the chest and arms even as he
tucked inside his waistline. They did not see any bulging object parried the blows while he was still handcuffed. He insisted he
in [sic] his person. did not even know what marijuana looked like and that his
business was selling watches and sometimes cigarettes.
However the RTC rejected his allegations. Saying that he only
has two watches during that time and that he did not
57. PEOPLE VS AMINUDIN (162 SCRA 402)
sufficiently proved the injuries allegedly sustained.
PRINCIPLES:
Issue: Whether or not search of defendant’s bag is legal.
a. Criminal Procedure; Warrant of Arrest; Warrantless
Held:
arrest allowed under Rule 113 of the Rules of Court
not justified unless the accused was caught in In the case at bar, there was no warrant of arrest or search
flagrante or an crime was about to be committedor warrant issued by a judge after personal determination by him
had just been committed. The evidence of probable of the existence of probable cause. Contrary to the averments of
cause should be determined by ajudge and not by law- the government, the accused-appellant was not caught in
enforcement agents flagrante nor was a crime about to be committed or had just
been committed to justify the warrantless arrest allowed under
b. Vessels and aircraft may be searched without search Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. Even expediency could not be
warrant - vessels and aircraft are subject to invoked to dispense with the obtention of the warrant as in the
warrantless searches and seizures for violation of the case of Roldan v. Arca, 24 for example. Here it was held that
customs law because these vehicles may be quickly vessels and aircraft are subject to warrantless searches
moved out of the locality or jurisdiction before the and seizures for violation of the customs law because these
warrant can be secured. vehicles may be quickly moved out of the locality or
jurisdiction before the warrant can be secured.
c. When a seach cannot be considered an incident of a
lawful arrest. – A search cannot be considered an The present case presented no such urgency. From the
incident of a lawful arrest if there is no warrant of conflicting declarations of the PC witnesses, it is clear that they
arrest and the warrantless arrest does not come under had at least two days within which they could have obtained a
the exceptions allowed by the Rules of Court. warrant to arrest and search Aminnudin who was coming to
Facts: Iloilo on the M/V Wilcon 9. His name was known. The vehicle
was Identified. The date of its arrival was certain. And from the
Idel Aminnudin, accused-appellant was arrested on June 25, information they had received, they could have persuaded a
1984, shortly after disembarking from the M/V Wilcon 9 at judge that there was probable cause, indeed, to justify the
about 8:30 in the evening, in Iloilo City. The PC officers who issuance of a warrant. Yet they did nothing. No effort was made
were in fact waiting for him because of a tip from one their to comply with the law. The Bill of Rights was ignored
informers simply accosted him, inspected his bag and finding altogether because the PC lieutenant who was the head of the
what looked liked marijuana leaves took him to their arresting team, had determined on his own authority that a
headquarters for investigation. The two bundles of suspect "search warrant was not necessary."
articles were confiscated from him and later taken to the NBI
laboratory for examination. It was found to contain three kilos In the many cases where this Court has sustained the
of what were later analyzed as marijuana leaves by an NBI warrantless arrest of violators of the Dangerous Drugs Act, it
forensic examiner. In his defense, Aminnudin disclaimed the has always been shown that they were caught red-handed, as a
marijuana, averring that all he had in his bag was his clothing result of what are popularly called "buy-bust" operations of the
consisting of a jacket, two shirts and two pairs of pants. He narcotics agents. Rule 113 was clearly applicable because at the

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


54
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

precise time of arrest the accused was in the act of selling the
prohibited drug. While inside the restaurant, Manarang noticed a vehicle
(Pajero) running fast down the highway. Immediately after the
In the case at bar, the accused-appellant was not, at the moment vehicle had passed the restaurant, Manarang and Perez heard a
of his arrest, committing a crime nor was it shown that he was screeching sound. Manarang went to the location of the
about to do so or that he had just done so. What he was doing accident and found out that the vehicle had hit somebody. He
was descending the gangplank of the M/V Wilcon 9 and there asked Cruz to look after the victim while he went back to the
was no outward indication that called for his arrest. To all restaurant, took his motorcycle and chased the accused. He
appearances, he was like any of the other passengers innocently reported through his radio the incident and the plate number
of the accused. Upon learning about the incident, the PNP
disembarking from the vessel. It was only when the informer
immediately took action. They were able to locate the vehicle
pointed to him as the carrier of the marijuana that he suddenly
and were able to block the running vehicle. SPO2 Borja and
became suspect and so subject to apprehension. It was the SPO2 Miranda approached the vehicle and instructed the driver
furtive finger that triggered his arrest. The Identification by the to alight the vehicle. They recognized the driver as Robin
informer was the probable cause as determined by the officers Padilla. The police informed him that he was being arrested for
(and not a judge) that authorized them to pounce upon hit and run and searched his body and vehicle for contrabands.
Aminnudin and immediately arrest him. When the police found firearms in his body and car, the police
modified the arrest by including as its ground illegal possession
of firearms.
58. PADILLA VS CA (269 SCRA 402)
ISSUE: Whether or not the arrest without warrant was lawful.
PRINCIPLE:
RULING:
1. REMEDIAL LAW; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; ARREST;
WARRANTLESS ARREST; GROUNDS. — Warrantless arrests Yes. Warrantless arrests are sanctioned in the following
are sanctioned in the following instances: "Sec. 5. Arrest instances:
without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a private Section 5. Arrest without warrant, when lawful. –A peace officer
person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: (a) When, in or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense., (b)
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit
personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be
arrested has committed it; (c) When the person to be arrested an offense;
is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has
place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be
confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being arrested has committed it;
transferred from one confinement to another. (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has
escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; "PRESENCE OF ARRESTING OFFICER OR serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is
PRIVATE PERSON"; PRESENCE DOES NOT ONLY REQUIRE THE pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one
PERSON TO SEE THE OFFENSE BUT ALSO WHEN HE "HEARS confinement to another.
THE DISTURBANCE CREATED AND PROCEEDS AT ONCE TO
THE SCENE"; CASE AT BAR. — Paragraph (a) requires that the Paragraph (a) requires that the person be arrested
person be arrested (i) after he has committed or while he is (i) after he has committed or while he is actually committing or
actually committing or is at least attempting to commit an is at least attempting to commit an offense,
offense, (ii) in the presence of the arresting officer or private
(ii) in the presence of the arresting officer or private person.
person.
Both elements concurred here, as it has been established
that petitioner's vehicle figured in a hit and run — an
FACTS:
offense committed in the "presence" of Manarang, a private
person, who then sought to arrest petitioner. It must be
Manarang and Perez were inside the Manukan sa Highway stressed at this point that "presence" does not only require that
Restaurant where they took shelter from the heavy downpour the arresting person sees the offense, but also when he "hears
that had interrupted their ride on motorcycle. the disturbance created thereby AND proceeds at once to the

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


55
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

scene." As testified to by Manarang, he heard the screeching of Upon seeing the patrol, Rosillo ran to the nearby house of
tires followed by a thud, saw the sideswiped victim (balut Evaristo. Evaristo and Carillo were asked as to the
vendor), reported the incident to the police and thereafter gave whereabouts of Rosillo but they told the police that the latter
chase to the erring Pajero vehicle using his motorcycle in order had already escaped through a window of the house. Sgt.
to apprehend its driver. After having sent a radio report to the Vallarta observed a noticeable buldge around the waist of
PNP for assistance, Manarang proceeded to the Abacan bridge Carillo who, upon being frisked, admitted the same to be a .38
where he found responding policemen SPO2 Borja and SPO2 revolver. After ascertaining that Cariloo was neither a member
Miranda already positioned near the bridge who effected the
of the military nor had a valid license to possess the said
actual arrest of petitioner.
firearm, the gun was confiscated and Carillo invited for
Petitioner would nonetheless insist on the illegality of his arrest questioning.
by arguing that the policemen who actually arrested him were
As the patrol was still in pursuit of Rosillo, Sgt. Romeroso
not at, the scene of the hit and run. We beg to disagree. That
sought Evaristo’s permission to scour through the house, which
Manarang decided to seek the aid of the policemen (who
was granted. In the sala, he saw number of firearms and
admittedly were nowhere in the vicinity of the hit and run) in
paraphernalia supposedly used in the repair and manufacture
effecting petitioner's arrest, did not in any way affect the
of firearms, all of which, became the basis for the criminal case
propriety of the apprehension. It was in fact the most prudent
of Evaristo.
action Manarang could have taken rather than collaring
petitioner by himself, inasmuch as policemen are ISSUE: WON there was a valid search.
unquestionably better trained and well-equipped in effecting
an arrest of a suspect (like herein petitioner) who, in all RULING:
probability, could have put up a degree of resistance which an
untrained civilian may not be able to contain without Yes. For a search to be reasonable under the law, there must, as
endangering his own life. Moreover, it is a reality that curbing a rule, be a search warrant validly issued by an appropriate
lawlessness gains more success when law enforcers function in judicial officer. Yet, the rule that searches and seizures must be
collaboration with private citizens. It is precisely through this supported by a valid search warrant is not an absolute and
cooperation that the offense herein involved fortunately did not inflexible rule, for jurisprudence has recognized several
become an additional entry to the long list of unreported and exceptions to the search warrant requirement. Among these
exceptions is the seizure of evidence in plain view, adopted by
unsolved crimes.
this jurisdiction from the pronouncements of the United States
Supreme Court in Harris vs. U.S. and Coolidge vs. New
Hampshire. Thus, it is recognized that objects inadvertently
59. PEOPLE VS EVARISTO (261 SCRA 431) falling in the plain view of an officer who has the right to be in
the position to have that view, are subject to seizure and may
PRINCIPLE: be introduced in evidence.
 As the Court held in People of the Philippines v. Sucro,
The records in this case show that Sgt. Romerosa was granted
(195 SCRA 388) "an offense is committed in the presence
permission by the appellant Evaristo to enter his house. The
or within the view of an officer, within the meaning of officer's purpose was to apprehend Rosillo whom he saw had
the rule authorizing an arrest without a warrant, when sought refuge therein. Therefore, it is clear that the search for
the officer sees the offense, although at a distance, or
firearms was not Romerosa's purpose in entering the house,
HEARS THE DISTURBANCES CREATED THEREBY AND
thereby rendering his discovery of the subject firearms as
PROCEEDS AT ONCE TO THE SCENE THEREOF."
inadvertent and even accidental.
FACTS: With respect to the firearm seized from the appellant Carillo,
the Court sustains the validity of the firearm's seizure and
Sgt. Romeroso, CIC Vallarta of the Philippine Constabulary and admissibility in evidence, based on the rule on authorized
Sgt. Maligaya were on routine patrol duty about 5:50pm in warrantless arrests. Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on
Cavite. They heard successive bursts of gunfire within the Criminal Procedure.
vicinity. Proceeding to the approximate source of the same,
they came upon Rosillo who was firing a gun in the air. For purposes of the present case, the second circumstance by
which a warrantless arrest may be undertaken is applicable.
For, as disclosed by the records, the peace officers, while on
patrol, heard bursts of gunfire and thus proceeded to

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


56
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

investigate the matter. This incident may well be within the companions during the killing of Bunye. The same morning,
"offense" envisioned by par. 5(b) of Rule 113, Rules of Court. As without warrant, the police agents arrested Nazareno for
the Court held in People of the Philippines v. Sucro, "an offense investigation.
is committed in the presence or within the view of an officer,
within the meaning of the rule authorizing an arrest without a ISSUE: Was the arrest valid?
warrant, when the officer sees the offense, although at a
distance, or HEARS THE DISTURBANCES CREATED THEREBY RULING:
AND PROCEEDS AT ONCE TO THE SCENE THEREOF.
In this case, the court ruled on the affirmative.

60. PEOPLE VS ALBARIO (RAPE CASE)  NOT Although the killing of Bunye II occurred on 14 December 1988,
FOUND while Nazareno's arrest without warrant was made only on 28
December 1988, or 14 days later, the arrest falls under Section
5(b) of Rule 113, since it was only on 28 December 1988 that
61. NAZARENO VS STATION COMMANDER the police authorities came to know that Nazareno was
(187 SCRA 312) probably one of those guilty in the killing of Bunye II and the
arrest had to be made promptly, even without warrant, (after
the police were alerted) and despite the lapse of fourteen (14)
PRINCIPLE: days to prevent possible flight.

REMEDIAL LAW.; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.; WARRANTLESS This Court reiterates that shortly after the arrests of Espiritu
ARREST.; REQUISITE THAT OFFENSE "HAS IN FACT JUST BEEN and Nazareno, the corresponding informations against them
COMMITTED"; REQUIRES IMMEDIACY AFTER THE were filed in court. The arrests of Espiritu and Nazareno were
COMMISSION OF THE ACT. — In the case of Espiritu, the arrest based on probable cause and supported by factual
was made while he was actually sleeping, and for allegedly circumstances. They complied with the conditions set forth in
seditious remarks made by him the day before. The Court says Section 5(b) of Rule 113. They were not arbitrary or whimsical
his case is not covered by the Garcia-Padilla doctrine but arrests.
approves the arrest just the same because the remarks were
supposed to continue their effects even to the following day. Parenthetically, it should be here stated that Nazareno has
The offense was considered as having been just committed (to since been convicted by the court a quo for murder and
make it come under Rule 113, Section 5, of the Rules of Court) sentenced to reclusion perpetua. He has appealed the judgment
despite the considerable time lapse. It was worse in the case of of conviction to the Court of Appeals where it is pending as of
Nazareno, who was also arrested without warrant, and no less this date (CA-G.R. No. still undocketed).
than fourteen days after the killing. In sustaining this act, the
Court says that it was only on the day of his arrest that he was
identified as one of the probable killers, thus suggesting that the DISSENTING:
validity of a warrantless arrest is reckoned not from the time of
the commission of an offense but from the time of the GUTIERREZ, JR., J.,
identification of the suspect. Section 5 of Rule 113 says that a
peace officer may arrest a person without a warrant if the latter In G.R. No. 86332, Romulo Bunye was killed on December 14,
"has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to 1988. The information that Narciso Nazareno was one of the
commit an offense" or when an offense "has in fact just been killers came to the attention of peace officers only on December
committed." The requirement of immediacy is obvious from the 28, 1988 or fourteen (14) days later. To say that the offense
word "just," which, according to Webster, means "a very short "has in fact just been committed" even if 14 days have lapsed is
time ago." The arrest must be made almost immediately or soon to stretch Rule 113 on warrantless arrests into ridiculous
after these acts, not at any time after the suspicion of the limits. A warrant of arrest is essential in this case. I vote to grant
arresting officer begins, no matter how long ago the offense was the motion for reconsideration.
committed.
The subsequent conviction of a person arrested illegally does
FACTS: not reach back into the past and render legal what was illegal.
In the morning of December 14, 1988, Romulo Bunye II was The violation of the constitutional right against illegal seizures
killed by a group of men in Muntinlupa. At about 5 am of is not cured by the fact that the arrested person is indeed guilty
December 28, 1988, Regala, one of the suspects in the said of the offense for which he was seized. A government of laws
killing was arrested. He pointed to Nazareno as one of his must abide by its own Constitution.

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


57
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

VI. RULE 114 (BAIL) aforesaid Manifestation/ Motion was filed, Harvey and his co-
petitioners had already filed the present petition.

62. HARVEY ET. AL. VS DEFENSOR SANTIAGO Petitioners availed of this Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.
(162 SCRA 840) A Return of the Writ was filed by the Solicitor General and the
Court heard the case on oral argument on 20 April 1988. A
Traverse to the Writ was presented by petitioners to which a
Reply was filed by the Solicitor General.
DOCTRINE:
 In deportation proceedings, the right to bail is not a ISSUE:
matter of right but a matter of discretion on the part of 1) Whether or not the Philippine Immigration Act clothed the
the Commissioner of Immigration and Deportation. As Commissioner with any authority to arrest and detain
deportation proceedings do not partake of the nature petitioners pending determination of the existence of a
of a criminal action, the constitutional guarantee to probable cause leading to an administrative investigation.
bail may not be invoked by aliens in said proceedings. 2) Whether or not the denial by the Commissioner on
petitioner’s release on bail was proper.
FACTS:
American nationals Andrew Harvey and John Sherman, 52 and RULING:
72 years, respectively, and Adriaan Van Elshout, 58, a Dutch 1) Yes. There can be no question that the right against
citizen, are all residing at Pagsanjan, Laguna. Commissioner unreasonable searches and seizures guaranteed by the
Miriam Defensor Santiago issued Mission Orders to the Constitution is available to all persons, including aliens,
Commission of Immigration and Deportation (CID) to whether accused of crime or not. One of the constitutional
apprehended petitioners at their residences. requirements of a valid search warrant or warrant of arrest is
that it must be based upon probable cause.
The “Operation Report” read that Andrew Harvey was found
together with two young boys. Richard Sherman was found In this case, the arrest of petitioners was based on probable
with two naked boys inside his room. While Van Den Elshout in cause determined after close surveillance for three (3) months
the “after Mission Report” read that two children of ages 14 and during which period their activities were monitored. The
16 has been under his care and subjects confirmed being live- existence of probable cause justified the arrest and the seizure
in for some time now. of the photo negatives, photographs and posters without
warrant.
Seized during the petitioner’s apprehension were rolls of photo
negatives and photos of suspected child prostitutes shown in [The fact that] petitioners were not “caught in the act” does not
scandalous poses as well as boys and girls engaged in sex. make their arrest illegal. Petitioners were found with young
Posters and other literature advertising the child prostitutes boys in their respective rooms, the ones with John Sherman
were also found. being naked. Under those circumstances the CID agents had
reasonable grounds to believe that petitioners had committed
Petitioners were among the twenty-two (22) suspected alien "pedophilia" defined as "psychosexual perversion involving
pedophiles who were apprehended after three months of close children"; Paraphilia (or unusual sexual activity) in which
surveillance by CID agents in Pagsanjan, Laguna. Only the three children are the preferred sexual object". While not a crime
petitioners have chosen to face deportation. under the Revised Penal Code, it is behavior offensive to public
morals and violative of the declared policy of the State to
Warrants of Arrest were issued by respondent against promote and protect the physical, moral, spiritual, and social
petitioners for violation of Sections 37, 45 and 46 of the well-being of our youth (Article II, Section 13, 1987
Immigration Act and Section 69 of the Revised Administrative Constitution).
Code.The Board of Special Inquiry III commenced trial against
petitioners. Petitioners filed a Petition for Bail which the CID The deportation charges instituted by respondent
denied. Commissioner are in accordance with Section 37(a) of the
Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, in relation to Section 69 of
Andrew Harvey filed a Manifestation/Motion stating that he the Revised Administrative Code. The requirement of probable
had “finally agreed to a self-deportation” and praying that he be cause, to be determined by a Judge, does not extend to
“provisionally released for at least 15 days and placed under deportation proceedings.”
the custody of Atty. Asinas before he voluntarily departs the
country.” However, it appears that on the same date that the It is of course well-settled that deportation proceedings do
not constitute a criminal action. The order of deportation

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


58
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

is not a punishment, (Maliler vs. Eby, 264 U.S., 32), it being Every sovereign power has the inherent power to exclude
merely the return to his country of an alien who has broken aliens from its territory upon such grounds as it may deem
the conditions upon which he could continue to reside proper for its self-preservation or public interest (Lao Tan Bun
within our borders (U.S. vs. De los Santos, 33 Phil., 397). The vs. Fabre 81 Phil. 682 [1948]). The power to deport aliens is an
deportation proceedings are administrative in character, act of State, an act done by or under the authority of the
(Kessler vs. Stracker 307 U.S., 22) summary in nature, and sovereign power (In re McCulloch Dick, 38 Phil. 41 [1918]). It is
need not be conducted strictly in accordance with the a police measure against undesirable aliens whose continued
ordinary court proceedings (Murdock vs. Clark, 53 F. [2d], presence in the country is found to be injurious to the public
155). It is essential, however, that the warrant of arrest good and the domestic tranquility of the people (Forbes vs.
shall give the alien sufficient information about the Chuoco Tiaco et al., 16 Phil. 534 [1910]). Particularly so in this
charges against him, relating the facts relied upon. (U.S. vs. case where the State has expressly committed itself to defend
Uhl 211 F., 628.) It is also essential that he be given a fair the tight of children to assistance and special protection from
hearing with the assistance of counsel, if he so desires, all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation, and other
before unprejudiced investigators (Strench vs. Pedaris, 55 F. conditions prejudicial to their development (Article XV, Section
[2d], 597; Ex parte Jew You On, 16 F. [2d], 153). However, all 3[2]). Respondent Commissioner of Immigration and
the strict rules of evidence governing judicial Deportation, in instituting deportation proceedings against
controversies do not need to be observed; only such as are petitioners, acted in the interests of the State.
fundamental and essential like the right of cross-
examination. (U.S. vs. Hughes, 104 F. [2d], 14; Murdock vs.
Clark, 53 F. [2d], 155.) Hearsay evidence may even be admitted,
provided the alien is given the opportunity to explain or rebut 63. HONGKONG VS OLALIA JR. (521 SCRA
it (Morrell vs. Baker, 270 F., 577; Sercerchi vs. Ward, 27 F. Supp., 570)
437). (Lao Tang Bun vs. Fabre 81 Phil. 682 [1948]). DOCTRINE:
 While our extradition law does not provide for the
What is essential is that there should be a specific charge grant of bail to an extraditee, however, there is no
against the alien intended to be arrested and deported, that a provision prohibiting him or her from filing a motion
fair hearing be conducted with the assistance of counsel, if for bail, a right to due process under the Constitution.
desired, and that the charge be substantiated by competent
evidence.  The applicable standard of due process, however,
should not be the same as that in criminal proceedings.
In the latter, the standard of due process is premised
2) Yes. The denial by respondent Commissioner of petitioners' on the presumption of innocence of the accused. As
release on bail, also challenged by them, was in order because Purganan correctly points out, it is from this major
in deportation proceedings, the right to bail is not a matter premise that the ancillary presumption in favor of
of right but a matter of discretion on the part of the admitting to bail arises. Bearing in mind the purpose
Commissioner of Immigration and Deportation. Thus, of extradition proceedings, the premise behind the
Section 37(e) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940 issuance of the arrest warrant and the "temporary
provides that "any alien under arrest in a deportation detention" is the possibility of flight of the potential
proceeding may be released under bond or under such other extraditee. This is based on the assumption that such
conditions as may be imposed by the Commissioner of extraditee is a fugitive from justice.Given the
Immigration." The use of the word "may" in said provision foregoing, the prospective extraditee thus bears the
indicates that the grant of bail is merely permissive and not onus probandi of showing that he or she is not a flight
mandatory on the part of the Commissioner. The exercise of the risk and should be granted bail.
power is wholly discretionary (Ong Hee Sang vs. Commissioner
of Immigration, L-9700, February 28,1962, 4 SCRA 442). An extradition proceeding, while ostensibly administrative,
"Neither the Constitution nor Section 69 of the Revised bears all earmarks of a criminal process. A potential extraditee
Administrative Code guarantees the right of aliens facing may be subjected to arrest, to a prolonged restraint of liberty,
deportation to provisional liberty on bail." (Tiu Chun Hai et al and forced to transfer to the demanding state following the
vs. Deportation Board, 104 Phil. 949 [1958]). As deportation proceedings. "Temporary detention" may be a necessary step
proceedings do not partake of the nature of a criminal in the process of extradition, but the length of time of the
action, the constitutional guarantee to bail may not be detention should be reasonable.
invoked by aliens in said proceedings (Ong Hee Sang vs.
Commissioner of Immigration, supra). FACTS:
On January 30, 1995, the Republic of the Philippines and the
then British Crown Colony of Hong Kong signed an "Agreement

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


59
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

for the Surrender of Accused and Convicted Persons." It took Human Rights applies to deportation cases, there is no reason
effect on June 20, 1997. On July 1, 1997, Hong Kong reverted why it cannot be invoked in extradition cases. After all, both are
back to the People’s Republic of China and became the Hong administrative proceedings where the innocence or guilt of the
Kong Special Administrative Region. person detained is not in issue.

Private respondent Muñoz was charged before the Hong Kong Clearly, the right of a prospective extraditee to apply for bail in
Court with three (3) counts of the offense of "accepting an this jurisdiction must be viewed in the light of the various treaty
advantage as agent," in violation of Section 9 (1) (a) of the obligations of the Philippines concerning respect for the
Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, Cap. 201 of Hong Kong. He promotion and protection of human rights. Under these
also faces seven (7) counts of the offense of conspiracy to treaties, the presumption lies in favor of human liberty. Thus,
defraud, penalized by the common law of Hong Kong. Warrants the Philippines should see to it that the right to liberty of every
of arrest were issued against him. The DOJ received a request individual is not impaired.
from the Hongkong Department of Justice for the provisional
arrest of Muñoz. The NBI later on arrested him on the basis of a Section 2(a) of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1069 (The
warrant issued by the RTC, Manila. The order was declared void Philippine Extradition Law) defines "extradition" as "the
by the CA, but its validity was sustained by the SC. In the removal of an accused from the Philippines with the object of
meantime, Hongkong Special Administrative Region filed with placing him at the disposal of foreign authorities to enable the
the RTC a petition for his extradition. He applied for bail which requesting state or government to hold him in connection with
was initially denied but which was reconsidered later, granting any criminal investigation directed against him or the execution
the petition for bail. There was a motion to vacate the order but of a penalty imposed on him under the penal or criminal law of
it was denied, hence, a special civil action for certiorari was filed the requesting state or government."
alleging that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in admitting private Extradition has thus been characterized as the right of a
respondent to bail; that there is nothing in the Constitution or foreign power, created by treaty, to demand the surrender
statutory law providing that a potential extraditee has a right to of one accused or convicted of a crime within its territorial
bail, the right being limited solely to criminal proceedings. jurisdiction, and the correlative duty of the other state to
surrender him to the demanding state. It is not a criminal
ISSUE: Whether or not a potential extraditee is entitled to post proceeding. Even if the potential extraditee is a criminal, an
bail. extradition proceeding is not by its nature criminal, for it is not
punishment for a crime, even though such punishment may
RULING: follow extradition. It is sui generis, tracing its existence wholly
Yes. While this Court in Purganan limited the exercise of the to treaty obligations between different nations. It is not a trial
right to bail to criminal proceedings, however, in light of the to determine the guilt or innocence of the potential extraditee.
various international treaties giving recognition and protection Nor is it a full-blown civil action, but one that is merely
to human rights, particularly the right to life and liberty, a administrative in character. Its object is to prevent the escape
reexamination of this Court’s ruling in Purganan is in order. of a person accused or convicted of a crime and to secure his
return to the state from which he fled, for the purpose of trial
First, we note that the exercise of the State’s power to deprive or punishment.
an individual of his liberty is not necessarily limited to criminal
proceedings. Respondents in administrative proceedings, such But while extradition is not a criminal proceeding, it is
as deportation and quarantine,have likewise been detained. characterized by the following: (a) it entails a deprivation
of liberty on the part of the potential extraditee and (b) the
Second, to limit bail to criminal proceedings would be to close means employed to attain the purpose of extradition is also
our eyes to our jurisprudential history. Philippine "the machinery of criminal law." This is shown by Section 6
jurisprudence has not limited the exercise of the right to bail to of P.D. No. 1069 (The Philippine Extradition Law) which
criminal proceedings only. This Court has admitted to bail mandates the "immediate arrest and temporary detention of
persons who are not involved in criminal proceedings. In fact, the accused" if such "will best serve the interest of justice." We
bail has been allowed in this jurisdiction to persons in detention further note that Section 20 allows the requesting state "in case
during the pendency of administrative proceedings, taking into of urgency" to ask for the "provisional arrest of the accused,
cognizance the obligation of the Philippines under international pending receipt of the request for extradition;" and that release
conventions to uphold human rights. from provisional arrest "shall not prejudice re-arrest and
extradition of the accused if a request for extradition is received
If bail can be granted in deportation cases, we see no subsequently."
justification why it should not also be allowed in extradition
cases. Likewise, considering that the Universal Declaration of

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


60
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

Obviously, an extradition proceeding, while ostensibly While administrative in character, the standard of substantial
administrative, bears all earmarks of a criminal process. A evidence used in administrative cases cannot likewise apply
potential extraditee may be subjected to arrest, to a prolonged given the object of extradition law which is to prevent the
restraint of liberty, and forced to transfer to the demanding prospective extraditee from fleeing our jurisdiction. In his
state following the proceedings. "Temporary detention" may be Separate Opinion in Purganan, then Associate Justice, now Chief
a necessary step in the process of extradition, but the length of Justice Reynato S. Puno, proposed that a new standard which
time of the detention should be reasonable. he termed "clear and convincing evidence" should be used in
granting bail in extradition cases. According to him, this
Records show that private respondent was arrested on standard should be lower than proof beyond reasonable doubt
September 23, 1999, and remained incarcerated until but higher than preponderance of evidence. The potential
December 20, 2001, when the trial court ordered his admission extraditee must prove by "clear and convincing evidence"
to bail. In other words, he had been detained for over two (2) that he is not a flight risk and will abide with all the orders
years without having been convicted of any crime. By any and processes of the extradition court.
standard, such an extended period of detention is a serious
deprivation of his fundamental right to liberty. In fact, it was In this case, there is no showing that private respondent
this prolonged deprivation of liberty which prompted the presented evidence to show that he is not a flight risk.
extradition court to grant him bail. Consequently, this case should be remanded to the trial court
to determine whether private respondent may be granted bail
While our extradition law does not provide for the grant of on the basis of "clear and convincing evidence."
bail to an extraditee, however, there is no provision
prohibiting him or her from filing a motion for bail, a right
to due process under the Constitution.
64. MIRANDA VS TULIAO (G.R. 158763)
The applicable standard of due process, however, should not be
the same as that in criminal proceedings. In the latter, the DOCTRINE:
standard of due process is premised on the presumption of  Custody of the law is required before the court can act
innocence of the accused. As Purganan correctly points out, it is upon the application for bail, but is not required for
from this major premise that the ancillary presumption in favor the adjudication of other reliefs sought by the
of admitting to bail arises. Bearing in mind the purpose of defendant where the mere application therefor
extradition proceedings, the premise behind the issuance of the constitutes a waiver of the defense of lack of
arrest warrant and the "temporary detention" is the possibility jurisdiction over the person of the accused. Custody of
of flight of the potential extraditee. This is based on the the law is accomplished either by arrest or voluntary
assumption that such extraditee is a fugitive from justice.Given surrender, while jurisdiction over the person of the
the foregoing, the prospective extraditee thus bears the onus accused is acquired upon his arrest or voluntary
probandi of showing that he or she is not a flight risk and should appearance. One can be under the custody of the law
be granted bail. but not yet subject to the jurisdiction of the court over
his person, such as when a person arrested by virtue
The time-honored principle of pacta sunt servanda demands of a warrant files a motion before arraignment to
that the Philippines honor its obligations under the Extradition quash the warrant. On the other hand, one can be
Treaty it entered into with the Hong Kong Special subject to the jurisdiction of the court over his person,
Administrative Region. Failure to comply with these obligations and yet not be in the custody of the law, such as when
is a setback in our foreign relations and defeats the purpose of an accused escapes custody after his trial has
extradition. However, it does not necessarily mean that in commenced. Being in the custody of the law signifies
keeping with its treaty obligations, the Philippines should restraint on the person, who is thereby deprived of his
diminish a potential extraditee’s rights to life, liberty, and due own will and liberty, binding him to become obedient
process. More so, where these rights are guaranteed, not only to the will of the law. Custody of the law is literally
by our Constitution, but also by international conventions, to custody over the body of the accused. It includes, but
which the Philippines is a party. We should not, therefore, is not limited to, detention.
deprive an extraditee of his right to apply for bail, provided that
a certain standard for the grant is satisfactorily met.  The reinstatement of a criminal case dismissed before
arraignment does not constitute double jeopardy.
An extradition proceeding being sui generis, the standard of Double jeopardy cannot be invoked where the accused
proof required in granting or denying bail can neither be the has not been arraigned and it was upon his express
proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases nor the motion that the case was dismissed.
standard of proof of preponderance of evidence in civil cases.

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


61
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

FACTS: restraining order while referring the petition to the Court of


On March 1996, two burnt cadavers were discovered in Ramon, Appeals for adjudication on the merits.
Isabela which were later identified as the bodies of Vicente
Bauzon and Elizer Tuliao, son of the private respondent Virgilio Respondent Tuliao filed with the SC a Motion to Cite Public
Tuliao who is now under the witness protection program. Respondent in Contempt, alleging that Judge Anghad
deliberately and willfully committed contempt of court when
Two Informations for murder were filed against 5 police he issued the orders dismissing the informations for murder.
officers including SPO2 Maderal in the RTC of Santiago City. The The motion was referred to the Court of Appeals in view of the
venue was later transferred to the RTC of Manila. The RTC previous referral to it of respondents petition for certiorari,
convicted the accused and sentenced them two counts of prohibition and mandamus.
reclusion perpetua except SPO2 Maderal who was yet to be
arraigned at that time being at large. Upon automatic review, The CA granted the petition and ordered the reinstatement of
the SC acquitted the accused on the ground of reasonable doubt. the criminal cases in the RTC of Santiago City, as well as the
issuance of warrants of arrest against petitioners and SPO2
In Sept. 1999, Maderal was arrested. He executed a sworn Maderal. Petitioners moved for a reconsideration of this
confession and identified the petitioners as the ones Decision, but the same was denied. Hence, this petition.
responsible for the death of the victims, so, Tuliao filed a
criminal complaint for murder against the petitioners. Acting ISSUE:
Presiding Judge Tumaliuan issued a warrant of arrest against 1) Whether or not an accused can seek judicial relief if he does
the petitioners and SPO2 Maderal. not submit his person to the jurisdiction of the court.
2) Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed a reversible
Then, the petitioners filed an urgent motion to complete error in ordering the reinstatement of Criminal Cases on the
preliminary investigation, to reinvestigate, and to recall or ground that the order of dismissal issued therein had become
quash the warrant of arrest. In the hearing of the urgent motion, final and executory.
Judge Tumaliuan noted the absence of the petitioners and
issued a Joint order denying the urgent motion on the ground RULING:
that since the court did not acquire jurisdiction over their 1) No. The SC pronouncement in Santiago shows a distinction
persons, the motion cannot be properly heard by the court. In between custody of the law and jurisdiction over the person.
the meantime, petitioners appealed the resolution of the State Custody of the law is required before the court can act upon
Prosecutor to the Department of Justice. the application for bail, but is not required for the adjudication
of other reliefs sought by the defendant where the mere
On 17 August 2001, the new Presiding Judge Anastacio D. application therefor constitutes a waiver of the defense of lack
Anghad took over the case and issued a Joint Order reversing of jurisdiction over the person of the accused. Custody of the
the Joint Order of Judge Tumaliuan. Consequently, he ordered law is accomplished either by arrest or voluntary surrender,
the cancellation of the warrant of arrest issued against while jurisdiction over the person of the accused is acquired
petitioner Miranda. He likewise applied this Order to upon his arrest or voluntary appearance. One can be under the
petitioners Ocon and Dalmacio. The State Prosecutor Leo and custody of the law but not yet subject to the jurisdiction of the
respondent Tuliao moved for the reconsideration of the said court over his person, such as when a person arrested by virtue
Joint Order and prayed for the inhibition of Judge Anghad, but of a warrant files a motion before arraignment to quash the
the motion for reconsideration and prayer for inhibition was warrant. On the other hand, one can be subject to the
denied. jurisdiction of the court over his person, and yet not be in the
custody of the law, such as when an accused escapes custody
Respondent Tuliao filed a petition for certiorari, mandamus after his trial has commenced. Being in the custody of the law
and prohibition with the SC, with prayer for a Temporary signifies restraint on the person, who is thereby deprived of his
Restraining Order, seeking to enjoin Judge Anghad from further own will and liberty, binding him to become obedient to the will
proceeding with the case, and seeking to nullify the Orders and of the law. Custody of the law is literally custody over the body
Joint Orders of Judge Anghad. of the accused. It includes, but is not limited to, detention.

The SC issued a Resolution resolving to grant the prayer for a The statement in Pico v. Judge Combong, Jr.,cited by the Court
temporary restraining order against Judge Anghad from further of Appeals should not have been separated from the issue in
proceeding with the criminal cases. Shortly after the aforesaid that case, which is the application for admission to bail of
resolution, Judge Anghad issued a Joint Order dismissing the someone not yet in the custody of the law. The entire paragraph
two Informations for murder against petitioners. The SC took of our pronouncement in Pico reads:
note of respondents cash bond evidenced by O.R. No. 15924532
dated 15 November 2001, and issued the temporary

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


62
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

A person applying for admission to bail must be in the custody person nor custody of the law. However, if a person
of the law or otherwise deprived of his liberty. A person who invoking the special jurisdiction of the court applies for
has not submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court has no bail, he must first submit himself to the custody of the law.
right to invoke the processes of that court. Respondent Judge
should have diligently ascertained the whereabouts of the In cases not involving the so-called special appearance, the
applicant and that he indeed had jurisdiction over the body of general rule applies, i.e., the accused is deemed to have
the accused before considering the application for bail.[14] submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court upon
seeking affirmative relief. Notwithstanding this, there is no
While we stand by our above pronouncement in Pico insofar as requirement for him to be in the custody of the law. The
it concerns bail, we clarify that, as a general rule, one who seeks following cases best illustrate this point, where we granted
an affirmative relief is deemed to have submitted to the various reliefs to accused who were not in the custody of the
jurisdiction of the court. As we held in the aforecited case of law, but were deemed to have placed their persons under the
Santiago, seeking an affirmative relief in court, whether in civil jurisdiction of the court. Note that none of these cases involve
or criminal proceedings, constitutes voluntary appearance. the application for bail, nor a motion to quash an information
due to lack of jurisdiction over the person, nor a motion to
Pico deals with an application for bail, where there is the special quash a warrant of arrest:
requirement of the applicant being in the custody of the law. In 1. In Allado v. Diokno, on the prayer of the accused in a
Feliciano v. Pasicolan, we held that [t]he purpose of bail is to petition for certiorari on the ground of lack of probable cause,
secure ones release and it would be incongruous to grant bail we issued a temporary restraining order enjoining PACC from
to one who is free. Thus, bail is the security required and given enforcing the warrant of arrest and the respondent judge
for the release of a person who is in the custody of law. The therein from further proceeding with the case and, instead, to
rationale behind this special rule on bail is that it discourages elevate the records to us.
and prevents resort to the former pernicious practice wherein
the accused could just send another in his stead to post his bail, 2. In Roberts, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, upon the accuseds
without recognizing the jurisdiction of the court by his personal Motion to Suspend Proceedings and to Hold in Abeyance
appearance therein and compliance with the requirements Issuance of Warrants of Arrest on the ground that they filed a
therefor. Petition for Review with the Department of Justice, we directed
respondent judge therein to cease and desist from further
There is, however, an exception to the rule that filing proceeding with the criminal case and to defer the issuance of
pleadings seeking affirmative relief constitutes voluntary warrants of arrests against the accused.
appearance, and the consequent submission of one’s
person to the jurisdiction of the court. This is in the case of 3. In Lacson v. Executive Secretary,on the prayer of the
pleadings whose prayer is precisely for the avoidance of accused in a petition for certiorari on the ground of lack of
the jurisdiction of the court, which only leads to a special jurisdiction on the part of the Sandiganbayan, we directed the
appearance. These pleadings are: (1) in civil cases, motions Sandiganbayan to transfer the criminal cases to the Regional
to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the Trial Court even before the issuance of the warrants of arrest.
person of the defendant, whether or not other grounds for
dismissal are included;(2) in criminal cases, motions to We hold that the circumstances forcing us to require custody of
quash a complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction the law in applications for bail are not present in motions to
over the person of the accused; and (3) motions to quash a quash the warrant of arrest. If we allow the granting of bail to
warrant of arrest. The first two are consequences of the fact persons not in the custody of the law, it is foreseeable that many
that failure to file them would constitute a waiver of the defense persons who can afford the bail will remain at large, and could
of lack of jurisdiction over the person. The third is a elude being held to answer for the commission of the offense if
consequence of the fact that it is the very legality of the court ever he is proven guilty. On the other hand, if we allow the
process forcing the submission of the person of the accused that quashal of warrants of arrest to persons not in the custody of
is the very issue in a motion to quash a warrant of arrest. the law, it would be very rare that a person not genuinely
entitled to liberty would remain scot-free. This is because it is
To recapitulate what we have discussed so far, in criminal cases, the same judge who issued the warrant of arrest who will
jurisdiction over the person of the accused is deemed waived decide whether or not he followed the Constitution in his
by the accused when he files any pleading seeking an determination of probable cause, and he can easily deny the
affirmative relief, except in cases when he invokes the special motion to quash if he really did find probable cause after
jurisdiction of the court by impugning such jurisdiction over his personally examining the records of the case.
person. Therefore, in narrow cases involving special
appearances, an accused can invoke the processes of the Moreover, pursuant to the presumption of regularity of official
court even though there is neither jurisdiction over the functions, the warrant continues in force and effect until it is

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


63
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

quashed and therefore can still be enforced on any day and at Yes. The right to bail invoked by the private respondents in
any time of the day and night. Furthermore, the continued G.R. Nos. 95020 has traditionally not been recognized and
absence of the accused can be taken against him in the is not available in the military, as an exception to the
determination of probable cause, since flight is indicative of general rule embodied in the Bill of Rights. This much was
guilt. suggested in Arula, where we observed that "the right to a
speedy trial is given more emphasis in the military where the
In fine, as much as it is incongruous to grant bail to one who is right to bail does not exist.
free, it is likewise incongruous to require one to surrender his
freedom before asserting it. Human rights enjoy a higher The justification for this exception was well explained by the
preference in the hierarchy of rights than property Solicitor General as follows:
rights,demanding that due process in the deprivation of liberty
must come before its taking and not after. The unique structure of the military should be enough
reason to exempt military men from the constitutional
2) No. In any case, the reinstatement of a criminal case coverage on the right to bail.
dismissed before arraignment does not constitute double
jeopardy. Double jeopardy cannot be invoked where the Aside from structural peculiarity, it is vital to note that
accused has not been arraigned and it was upon his express mutinous soldiers operate within the framework of democratic
motion that the case was dismissed. system, are allowed the fiduciary use of firearms by the
government for the discharge of their duties and
responsibilities and are paid out of revenues collected from the
people. All other insurgent elements carry out their activities
65. COMENDADOR CS DE VILLA (200 SCRA outside of and against the existing political system.
80)
xxx xxx xxx
DOCTRINE: National security considerations should also impress upon this
 The right to a speedy trial is given more emphasis in Honorable Court that release on bail of respondents constitutes
the military where the right to bail does not exist. The a damaging precedent. Imagine a scenario of say 1,000
unique structure of the military should be enough putschists roaming the streets of the Metropolis on bail, or if the
reason to exempt military men from the constitutional assailed July 25,1990 Order were sustained, on "provisional"
coverage on the right to bail. bail. The sheer number alone is already discomforting. But, the
truly disquieting thought is that they could freely resume their
FACTS: heinous activity which could very well result in the overthrow
This is a consolidated case of members of the AFP who were of duly constituted authorities, including this Honorable Court,
charged with violation of Articles of War (AW) 67 (Mutiny), AW and replace the same with a system consonant with their own
96 (Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and a Gentleman) and AW concept of government and justice.
94 (Various Crimes) in relation to Article 248 of the Revised
Penal Code (Murder). The petitioners were questioning the The argument that denial from the military of the right to bail
conduct of the pre-trial investigation conducted where a would violate the equal protection clause is not acceptable. This
motion to bail was filed but was denied. Petitioner applied for guaranty requires equal treatment only of persons or things
provisional liberty and preliminary injunction before the court similarly situated and does not apply where the subject of the
which was granted. However De Villa refused to release treatment is substantially different from others. The accused
petitioner for provisional liberty pending the resolution of the officers can complain if they are denied bail and other members
appeal they have taken before the court invoking that military of the military are not. But they cannot say they have been
officers are an exemption from the right to bail guaranteed by discriminated against because they are not allowed the same
the Constitution. Decision was rendered reiterating the release right that is extended to civilians.
for provisional liberty of petitioners with the court stating that
there is a mistake in the presumption of respondents that bail
does not apply among military men facing court martial
proceeding. Respondents now appeal before the higher court.

ISSUE: Whether or not military men are exempted from the


Constitutional guarantee on the right to bail. 66. JUROTA VS BITAS (2014)

RULING: PRINCIPLE:

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


64
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

 The hearing for bail is different from the however, he was able to post his bail bond before a warrant of
determination of the existence of probable cause. arrest can be issued against him. Thus, the warrant of arrest had
The latter takes place prior to all proceedings, so become fait accompli.
that if the court is not satisfied with the existence of
a probable cause, it may either dismiss the case or ISSUE:
deny the issuance of the warrant of arrest or
conduct a hearing to satisfy itself of the existence of 1. WHETHER OR NOT ISSUANCE OF WARRANT OF
ARREST SHOULD BE ISSUED?
probable cause. If the court finds the existence of
2. WHETHER OR NOT ACCUSED IS ENTITLED TO BAIL
probable cause, the court is mandated to issue a AS A MATTER OF RIGHT.
warrant of arrest or commitment order if the
accused is already under custody, as when he was RULING:
validly arrested without a warrant. It is only after
this proceeding that the court can entertain a NO TO BOTH.
petition for bail where a subsequent hearing is
conducted to determine if the evidence of guilt is In the instant case, Miralles was charged with Qualified
weak or not Trafficking, which under Section 10 (C) of R.A. No. 9208 is
punishable by life imprisonment and a fine of not less than Two
FACTS: Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00) but not more than Five Million
Pesos (P5,000,000.00). Thus, by reason of the penalty
Qualified Trafficking and Violation of Article VI, Section 10 of prescribed by law, the grant of bail is a matter of discretion
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610 were filed against Danilo Miralles which can be exercised only by respondent judge after the
(Miralles), et al. before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, evidence is submitted in a hearing. The hearing of the
application for bail in capital offenses is absolutely
Tacloban City where respondent Judge Bitas presides.
indispensable before a judge can properly determine whether
the prosecution’s evidence is weak or strong.19
Accused Miralles, through counsel, filed a Motion for Judicial
Determination of Probable Cause with Motion to Hold in
As correctly found by the Investigating Justice, with life
Abeyance the Issuance of a Warrant of Arrest. imprisonment as one of the penalties prescribed for the offense
charged against Miralles, he cannot be admitted to bail when
Complainant’s contentions: evidence of guilt is strong, in accordance with Section 7, Rule
114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.20
Complainant lamented that respondent judge disregarded his
duties and violated mandatory provisions of the Rules of Court Here, what is appalling is not only did respondent judge deviate
when he did not issue a warrant of arrest against the accused from the requirement of a hearing where there is an application
Miralles, who was charged with two (2) non-bailable criminal for bail, respondent judge granted bail to Miralles without
offenses. As early as November 19, 2009, criminal complaints neither conducting a hearing nor a motion for application for
against Miralles for Qualified Trafficking were already filed, yet bail. Respondent judge's justification that he granted bail,
respondent judge never issued a warrant of arrest for Miralles because he found the evidence of the prosecution weak, cannot
despite accused's presence during the court hearings. be sustained because the records show that no such hearing for
Moreover, respondent judge granted a reduced bail that purpose transpired. What the records show is a hearing to
of P40,000.00 for accused Miralles even without any petition determine the existence of probable cause, not a hearing for a
for the fixing of bail. petition for bail. The hearing for bail is different from the
determination of the existence of probable cause. The latter
Respondent’s averments: takes place prior to all proceedings, so that if the court is not
satisfied with the existence of a probable cause, it may either
He stressed that when the court has acquired jurisdiction over dismiss the case or deny the issuance of the warrant of arrest
the person of the accused, there is no more need to issue a or conduct a hearing to satisfy itself of the existence of probable
warrant of arrest. Respondent judge pointed out that Miralles cause. If the court finds the existence of probable cause, the
always made himself available, hence, he believed that the ends court is mandated to issue a warrant of arrest or commitment
of justice had not been frustrated. He insisted that there is no order if the accused is already under custody, as when he was
anomaly in the procedure because a warrant of arrest will be validly arrested without a warrant. It is only after this
issued only upon the finding of probable cause. In this case, proceeding that the court can entertain a petition for bail where

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


65
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

a subsequent hearing is conducted to determine if the evidence yet then voluntarily surrendered or been placed under the
of guilt is weak or not. Hence, in granting bail and fixing it custody of the law.8 Accordingly, the Sandiganbayan ordered
at P20,000.00 motu proprio, without allowing the prosecution the arrest of Enrile.9
to present its evidence, respondent judge denied the
prosecution of due process. This Court had said so in many On the same day that the warrant for his arrest was issued,
cases and had imposed sanctions on judges who granted Enrile voluntarily surrendered to Director Benjamin Magalong
applications for bail in capital offenses and in offenses of the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) in
punishable by reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, Camp Crame, Quezon City, and was later on confined at the
without giving the prosecution the opportunity to prove that Philippine National Police (PNP) General Hospital following his
the evidence of guilt is strong.21 medical examination.10

Clearly, in the instant case, respondent judge's act of fixing the Thereafter, Enrile filed his Motion for Detention at the PNP
accused's bail and reducing the same motu proprio is not mere General Hospital ,11 and his Motion to Fix Bail ,12 both dated July
deficiency in prudence, discretion and judgment on the part of 7, 2014, which were heard by the Sandiganbayan on July 8,
respondent judge, but a patent disregard of well-known rules. 2014.13 In support of the motions, Enrile argued that he should
When an error is so gross and patent, such error produces an be allowed to post bail because: (a) the Prosecution had not yet
inference of bad faith, making the judge liable for gross established that the evidence of his guilt was strong; (b)
ignorance of the law. although he was charged with plunder, the penalty as to him
would only be reclusion temporal , not reclusion perpetua. He
anchors this claim on Section 2 of R.A. No. 7080, as
67. ENRILE VS SANDIGANBAYAN (G.R. amended, and on the allegation that he is over seventy (70)
213847 8/18/15) years old and that he voluntarily surrendered.
"Accordingly, it may be said that the crime charged against
PRINCIPLE: Enrile is not punishable by reclusion perpetua, and thus
bailable." ; and (c) he was not a flight risk, and his age and
 In now granting Enrile’s petition for certiorari, the physical condition must further be seriously considered.
Court is guided by the earlier mentioned principal
purpose of bail, which is to guarantee the appearance of SANDIGANBAYAN’S CONTENTION:
the accused at the trial, or whenever so required by the
court. The Court is further mindful of the Philippines’ It denied Enrile’s application for bail.
responsibility in the international community arising
from the national commitment under the Universal
It is premature for Enrile to ask the Court for the fixing of his
Declaration of Human Rights to: uphold the
bail on the ground that [I]t is only after the prosecution shall
fundamental human rights as well as value the worth
have presented its evidence and the Court shall have made a
and dignity of every person (Section II, Article II of our
determination that the evidence of guilt is not strong against
Constitution ).
accused Enrile can he demand bail as a matter of right. AND
[F]or purposes of bail, the presence of mitigating
FACTS: circumstance/s is not taken into consideration. These
circumstances will only be appreciated in the imposition of the
Office of the Ombudsman charged Enrile and several others proper penalty after trial should the accused be found guilty of
with plunder in the Sandiganbayan on the basis of their the offense charged.
purported involvement in the diversion and misuse of
appropriations under the Priority Development Assistance ISSUES:
Fund (PDAF).4 On June 10, 2014 and June 16, 2014, Enrile
respectively filed his Omnibus Motion5 and Supplemental
1. WHEN BAIL IS GRANTED AS A MATTER OF RIGHT
Opposition,6 praying, among others, that he be allowed to post
2. BAIL AS A MATTER OF DISRECTION
bail should probable cause be found against him. The motions
3. WHETHER BAIL BE GRANTED.
were heard by the Sandiganbayan after the Prosecution filed its
Consolidated Opposition.7
RULING:
On July 3, 2014, the Sandiganbaya n issued its resolution
denying Enrile’s motion, particularly on the matter of bail, on 1. BAIL AS A MATTER OF RIGHT
the ground of its prematurity considering that Enrile had not

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


66
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

The general rule is, therefore, that any person, before punishable with reclusion perpetua ,37 simply because
being convicted of any criminal offense, shall be the determination, being primarily factual in context,
bailable, unless he is charged with a capital offense, or is ideally to be made by the trial court.
with an offense punishable with reclusion perpetua or
life imprisonment, and the evidence of his guilt is Nonetheless, in now granting Enrile’s petition for
strong. certiorari, the Court is guided by the earlier mentioned
principal purpose of bail, which is to guarantee the
A.) As a result, all criminal cases within the appearance of the accused at the trial, or whenever so
competence of the Metropolitan Trial Court, required by the court. The Court is further mindful of
Municipal Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in the Philippines’ responsibility in the international
Cities, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court are bailable community arising from the national commitment
as matter of right because these courts have no under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to:
jurisdiction to try capital offenses, or offenses uphold the fundamental human rights as well as value
punishable with reclusion perpetua or life the worth and dignity of every person (Section II,
imprisonment. Article II of our Constitution ).
B.) bail is a matter of right prior to conviction by the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) for any offense not This national commitment to uphold the fundamental
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua , or life human rights as well as value the worth and dignity of
imprisonment, or even prior to conviction for an every person has authorized the grant of bail not only
offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua , to those charged in criminal proceedings but also to
or life imprisonment when evidence of guilt is not extraditees upon a clear and convincing showing: (1 )
strong.2 that the detainee will not be a flight risk or a danger to
the community; and (2 ) that there exist special,
2. BAIL AS A MATTER OF DISCRETION humanitarian and compelling circumstances.39

(1) upon conviction by the RTC of an offense not In our view, his social and political standing and his
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life having immediately surrendered to the authorities
imprisonment;29 or (2) if the RTC has imposed a upon his being charged in court indicate that the risk
penalty of imprisonment exceeding six years, of his flight or escape from this jurisdiction is highly
provided none of the circumstances enumerated unlikely. His personal disposition from the onset of his
under paragraph 3 of Section 5, Rule 114 is present, as indictment for plunder, formal or otherwise, has
follows: demonstrated his utter respect for the legal processes
of this country. We also do not ignore that at an earlier
(a) That he is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual time many years ago when he had been charged with
delinquent, or has committed the crime aggravated by rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated
the circumstance of reiteration; murder, he already evinced a similar personal
(b) That he has previously escaped from legal disposition of respect for the legal processes, and was
confinement, evaded sentence, or violated the granted bail during the pendency of his trial because
conditions of his bail without valid justification; he was not seen as a flight risk.40 With his solid
(c) That he committed the offense while under reputation in both his public and his private lives, his
probation, parole, or conditional pardon; long years of public service, and history’s judgment of
(d) That the circumstances of hi s case indicate the him being at stake, he should be granted bail.
probability of flight if released on bail; or
(e) That there is undue risk that he may commit POOR HEALTH
another crime during the pendency of the appeal.
Dr. Gonzales attested that the following medical conditions,
3. YES. Enrile’s poor health justifies his admission to bail singly or collectively, could pose significant risk s to the life of
4. Enrile, to wit: (1) uncontrolled hypertension, because it could
WORTH AND DIGNITY OF EVERY PERSON lead to brain or heart complications, including recurrence of
stroke; (2) arrhythmia, because it could lead to fatal or non-
we do not determine now the question of whether or fatal cardiovascular events, especially under stressful
not Enrile’s averment on the presence of the two conditions; (3) coronary calcifications associated with
mitigating circumstances could entitle him to bail coronary artery disease, because they could indicate a future
despite the crime alleged against him being risk for heart attack under stressful conditions; and (4)

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


67
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

exacerbations of ACOS, because they could be triggered by P80,000.00," signed and approved by the assistant prosecutor
certain circumstances (like excessive heat, humidity, dust or and eventually by respondent Judge.
allergen exposure) which could cause a deterioration in
patients with asthma or COPD.43 In his comment ,respondent Judge alleged that he
granted the petition based on the prosecutor's option not to
Based on foregoing, there is no question at all that Enrile’s oppose the petition as well as the latter's recommendation
advanced age and ill health required special medical setting the bail bond in the amount of P80,000.00. He averred
attention. It is relevant to observe that granting provisional that when the prosecution chose not to oppose the petition for
liberty to Enrile will then enable him to have his medical bail, he had the discretion on whether to approve it or not. He
condition be properly addressed and better attended to by further declared that when he approved the petition, he had a
competent physicians in the hospitals of his choice. This will not right to presume that the prosecutor knew what he was doing
only aid in his adequate preparation of his defense but, more since he was more familiar with the case, having conducted the
importantly , will guarantee his appearance in court for the preliminary investigation. Furthermore, the private prosecutor
trial. was not around at the time the public prosecutor recommended
bail.

68. PEOPLE VS AMONDINO (200 SCRA 6)  ISSUE: Whether the grant of bail is proper in this case
NOT FOUND
RULING:
69. RASUL VS RAPATALO (269 SCRA 220)
NO.
PRINCIPLE:
It is in view of the abovementioned practical function of
 In the application for bail of a person charged with a bail that it is not a matter of right in cases where the person is
capital offense cpunishable by death, reclusion charged with a capital offense punishable by death, reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment, a hearing, whether perpetua or life imprisonment. Article 114, section 7 of the
summary or otherwise in the discretion of the court, Rules of Court, as amended, states, "No person charged with a
must actually be conducted to determine whether or capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua
not the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong. or life imprisonment when the evidence of guilt is strong, shall
be admitted to bail regardless of the stage of the criminal
FACTS: action."
When the grant of bail is discretionary, the prosecution
Complainant, who is the father of the victim, alleged
has the burden of showing that the evidence of guilt against the
that an information for murder was filed against a certain Roger
accused is strong. However, the determination of whether or
Morente, one of three accused. The accused Morente filed a
not the evidence of guilt is strong, being a matter of judicial
petition for bail. The hearing for said petition was set for May
discretion, remains with the judge. "This discretion by the very
31, 1995 by petitioner but was not heard since the respondent nature of things, may rightly be exercised only after the
Judge was then on leave. It was reset to June 8, 1995 but on said
evidence is submitted to the court at the hearing. Since the
date, respondent Judge reset it to June 22, 1995. The hearing for
discretion is directed to the weight of the evidence and since
June 22, 1995, however, did not materialize. Instead, the
evidence cannot properly be weighed if not duly exhibited or
accused was arraigned and trial was set. Again, the petition for
produced before the court,[7] it is obvious that a proper exercise
bail was not heard on said date as the prosecution's witnesses of judicial discretion requires that the evidence of guilt be
in connection with said petition were not notified. Another
submitted to the court, the petitioner having the right of cross
attempt was made to reset the hearing to July 17, 1995.
examination and to introduce his own evidence in rebuttal."[8]

In the meantime, complainant allegedly saw the To be sure, the discretion of the trial court, "is not absolute
accused in Rosario, La Union. He later learned that the accused nor beyond control. It must be sound, and exercised within
was out on bail despite the fact that the petition had not been reasonable bounds. Judicial discretion, by its very nature
heard at all. Upon investigation, complainant discovered that involves the exercise of the judge's individual opinion and the
bail had been granted and a release order dated June 29, law has wisely provided that its exercise be guided by well-
1995[1] was issued on the basis of a marginal note[2] dated known rules which, while allowing the judge rational latitude
June 22, 1995, at the bottom of the bail petition by Assistant for the operation of his own individual views, prevent them
Prosecutor Manuel Oliva which stated: "No objection: from getting out of control. An uncontrolled or uncontrollable

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


68
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

discretion on the part of a judge is a misnomer. It is a fallacy. Issue: Whether or not the judge is guilty of gross ignorance of
Lord Mansfield, speaking of the discretion to be exercised in the Law.
granting or denying bail said: "But discretion when applied to a
court of justice, means sound discretion guided by law. It must
be governed by rule, not by humour; it must not be arbitrary, Ruling:
vague and fanciful; but legal and regular."[9]
Consequently, in the application for bail of a person Yes. When a person is charged with an offense punishable b
charged with a capital offense cpunishable by death, reclusion y death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, bail is a matt
perpetua or life imprisonment, a hearing, whether summary or
er of discretion. Rule 114, Section 7 of the Rules of Court states
otherwise in the discretion of the court, must actually be
conducted to determine whether or not the evidence of guilt : No person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punis
against the accused is strong. "A summary hearing means such hable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment when the evi
brief and speedy method of receiving and considering the dence of guilt is strong, shall be admitted to bail regardless of t
evidence of guilt as is practicable and consistent with the
purpose of hearing which is merely to determine the weight of he stage of the criminal action. Consequently, when the accuse
evidence for the purposes of bail. On such hearing, the court d is charged with an offense punishable by death, reclusion per
does not sit to try the merits or to enter into any nice inquiry as petua or life imprisonment, the judge is mandated to conduct a
to the weight that ought to be allowed to the evidence for or
hearing, whether summary or otherwise in the discretion of th
against the accused, nor will it speculate on the outcome of the
trial or on what further evidence may be therein offered and e court, not only to take into account the guidelines set forth in
admitted. The course of inquiry may be left to the discretion of Section 9, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, but primarily to dete
the court which may confine itself to receiving such evidence as
rmine the existence of strong evidence of guilt or lack of it, agai
has reference to substantial matters, avoiding unnecessary
thoroughness in the examination and cross examination."[10] If nst the accused.
a party is denied the opportunity to be heard, there would be a
violation of procedural due process. A summary hearing means such brief and speedy method of
receiving and considering the evidence of guilt as is practicabl
Respondent judge herein insists that he could exercise his
discretion in granting bail to the accused since the Assistant e and consistent with the purpose of hearing which is merely t
Prosecutor signified in writing that he had no objection to the o determine the weight of evidence for purposes of bail. On suc
grant of bail and recommended, instead, the bailbond in the h hearing, the court does not sit to try the merits or to enter int
sum of P80,000.00. It is to be emphasized that although the
court may have the discretion to grant the application for bail, o any nice inquiry as to the weight that ought to be allowed to t
in cases of capital offenses, the determination as to whether or he evidence for or against the accused, nor will it speculate on
not the evidence of guilt is strong can only be reached after due the outcome of the trial or on what further evidence may be th
hearing which, in this particular instance has not been
erein offered or admitted. The course of inquiry may be left to
substantially complied with by the respondent Judge.
the discretion of the court which may confine itself to receivin
g such evidence of guilt against the accused is strong.
70. CORTES VS CATRAL (279 SCRA 1)
The procedural lapse of respondent judge is aggravated by t
FACTS:
he fact that even though the accused in Criminal Case No. 07-8
A sworn letter complaint was filed by Flaviano Cortes charging
74, People v. Ahmed Duerme, have yet to be arrested, respond
Judge Segundo B. Catral of the RTC of Aparri, Cagayan with Gr
ent already fixed bail in the sum of P200,000.00. Respondent e
oss Ignorance of the Law committed as follows:
vidently knew that the accused were still at large as he even ha
1. He granted bail in murder cases without hearing: People v. D
d to direct their arrest in the same order where he simultaneo
uerme, et al., Criminal Case No. 07-893 for murder and People
usly granted them bail. At this juncture, there is a need to reite
v. Rodrigo Bumanglag, Criminal Case No. 08-866 for murder. A
rate the basic principle that the right to bail can only be availed
lso, in Pp vs. Duerme, the Judge granted bail when the accused
of by a person who is in custody of the law or otherwise depri
is still at large.
ved of his liberty and it would be premature, not to say incongr

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


69
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

uous, to file a petition for bail for some whose freedom has yet turb this finding for in cases of this nature the determination o
to be curtailed. f the sufficiency of the explanation given is a matter that lies wi
thin the discretion of the court.

71. PEOPLE VS GONZALEZ (1/24/1959)  Also, When the obligation of bail is assumed, the sureties beco
BONDSMAN mes the law the jailers of their principal. Their custody of him i
s the continuance of the original imprisonment, and though the
FACTS :
y cannot actually confine him, they are subrogated to all the ot
On October 15, 1956 the Alto Surety & Instance Co., Inc., poste
her rights and means which the government possesses to mak
d a bail in the amount of P2,000 for the provisional release of t
e their control of him effective" (U.S. vs. Addison and Gomez, 2
he accused in Criminal Case No. 4470 pending in the Court of F
7 Phil., 562).
irst Instance of Nueva Ecija subject to the condition that the co
mpany will be liable should be accused fail to appear when req
72. SANTIAGO VS GARCHITORENA
uired by the court. On November 27, 1956, the date of hearing (12/2/1993)  C/O LORELIE
of the case, the accused failed to appear notwithstanding due n 73. MIRANDA VS TULIAO (3/31/2006)  C/O
otice given to his bondsman, whereupon the court ordered the LORELIE
confiscation of the bond and gave the bondsman a period of th
irty days within which to produce the accused and show cause
74. ALBA VS CA (4/12/2006)
why judgment should not be rendered on said bond. On Decem
ber 7, 1956, the bondsman filed a motion to lift the order of co (On variance between ‘custody of the law’ and ‘jurisdiction of the
nfiscation and at the same time explaining that the accused fail court’)
ed to appear on the date of trial because his mother was very il
l and was brought to the San Lorenzo Hospital for treatment. I Facts:
n the meantime, the court, upon motion of special counsel Ferr Alva was not good lately so he was charged with estafa.
er, ordered the dismissal of the case against the accused. This n He posted bail which was eventually granted. During the
otwithstanding, the court denied the motion to lift the order of promulgation of judgement he failed to appear thus the court
confiscation in an order entered on December 13, 1956, but re reschedule the promulgation to a later date, however Alva again
duced the liability of the bondsman to 20% of the original bon failed to appear which opted the court to promulgate the
d. Its motion for reconsideration having been denied, the bond decision in absentia convicting Alva with the crime and commit
him to prison for 9 to 17 years the court also ordered the arrest
sman took the present appeal.
of Alva. Thereafter, Alva, filed an appeal and posted bail which
was however denied by the RTC due to Alva’s failure to submit
ISSUE: Whether or not the court is correct in not lifting the ord himself with the custody of the law by jumping bail and failure
er of confiscation of the bond. to surrender, the same decision was affirmed on appeal.

Ruling : Issues:

1. WON the court is correct in denying Alva’s posting of


Yes. under Section 17, Rule 110,a bondsman is in duty bound t bail on appeal?
o produce the person of the accused when his appearance is re 2. WON the court is correct in denying Alva’s appeal?
quired by the court, which shows that mere notification is not 3. What is the difference of ‘custody of the law’ and
sufficient but the bondsman must make every effort to see that ‘jurisdiction of the court’? (Discussed topic)
he actually makes his appearance. Because of such inaction, th Ruling:
e trial court considered the bondsman negligent in the perform 1. Yes, because in the instant case bail is discretionary
ance of its duty as the rule requires. We are not disposed to dis with the court.

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


70
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

SE C .5 . Ba il, w h e n d is c re t io na r y. U p o n co n vi c ti o n d i s m i s s a l o f p e t i t i o ne r s a p p e a l. As p o i nt e d o u t by
by th e R e g io na l T ria l C o u rt o f a n o ff e ns e n ot t h e C o u r t i n t h e c a s e o f P e o p le v . Ma p a la o , [ 3 9 ] t h e
p un i sh a bl e b y d ea t h , re cl us i o n p e rp e t ua o r l i fe r e a s o n f o r s a i d r u le i s t h a t :
imp r is o nm en t, th e c o ur t, on
a p p li ca ti o n, ma y a d m it t h e a c c us ed to ba i l.
[ O] nc e a n a cc us e d e sc a p es f ro m
X X X p ri so n o r c on f in em e nt o r ju mp s ba il
or fl ee s to a f or e ig n co u n tr y, h e lo ss e s
h i s sta n d in g i n c o ur t a n d un le s s h e
I n t h e c a s e a t ba r , p e t i t i o ne r wa s c o n v i c t e d su rr e nd e rs or su b mi ts to th e
by t h e RT C t o s u f f e r t h e p e na lt y o f i m p r i s o nm e nt ju ri s d ic t io n of t h e c o ur t h e i s d ee me d
to h a v e wa i ve d a n y r i gh t to s ee k
f o r a n i n d e t e r m i na t e t e r m o f ni ne (9 ) y e a r s a nd o ne re li ef fr om th e co u rt.

(1 ) d a y a s m i ni m u m o f p r i s i o n m a y o r t o s e v e nt e e n
3.
(1 7 ) y e a r s a s m a xi m u m o f r e c lu s i o n t e m p o r a l .

Quite c le a r ly , the approval of


Cu s t o d y o f t h e la w i s a c c o m p l i s h e d
e i t h e r by a r r e s t o r v o lu nt a r y
p e t i t i o ne r ’s a p p li c a t i o n f o r ba i l wa s d i s c r e t i o na r y
s u r r e nd e r ; wh i le (the term)
u p o n t h e R T C. ju r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e p e r s o n o f t h e
a c c u s e d i s a c qu i r e d u p o n h i s a r r e s t
o r v o lu nt a r y a p p e a r a nc e .

2. Ye s . O ne c a n be u nd e r t h e c u s t o d y o f t h e
la w bu t n o t y e t s u b je c t t o t h e
ju r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e c o u r t o v e r h i s
SE C . 8 . D i sm i ssa l o f a p p e a l fo r p e r s o n, s u c h a s wh e n a p e r s o n
a ba n d on me n t or f a il ur e to a r r e s t e d b y v i r t u e o f a wa r r a nt f i le s
p ro se cu t e . T h e a p p e lla te co u rt ma y, a m o t i o n be f o r e a r r a i gn m e nt t o
qu a s h t h e wa r r a n t . O n t h e o t h e r
up o n mo t io n o f th e a p p ell ee o r it s
h a nd , o ne c a n be s u b je c t t o t h e
ow n m ot i o n a n d no t ic e t o th e ju r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e c o u r t o v e r h i s
a p p ella n t, d i sm is s t h e a p p ea l i f th e p e r s o n, a nd y e t no t be i n t h e c u s t o d y
a p p ella n t fa il s t o fi le h i s b r ie f w i th i n o f t h e la w, s u c h a s wh e n a n
th e t im e p r es c ri be d b y t h i s R ule , accused escapes custody after his
ex c ep t in ca s e th e a p p ella n t i s t r i a l h a s c o m m e nc e d .
rep re se n te d b y a c o u n se l de o f ic io .
Mo r e o v e r , ju r i s d i c t i o n, o nc e
a c qu i r e d , i s no t l o s t a t t h e i ns t a nc e
Th e c o u r t ma y a l so , up o n o f p a r t i e s , a s wh e n a n a c c u s e d
mo ti o n o f t h e a p p el le e o r o n it s o w n e s c a p e s f r o m t h e c u s t o d y o f t h e la w,
mo ti o n, d i sm i ss th e a p p ea l if th e bu t c o nt i nu e s u nt i l the case
a p p ella n t es ca p e s fr o m p ri so n o r i s t e r m i na t e d . E v i d e nt l y , p e t i t i o ne r
co nf i ne me n t o r j u mp s ba il o r fl ee s to i s c o r r e c t i n t h a t t h e r e i s no d o u bt
a f or e ig n c o u n tr y d ur i ng th e t h a t t h e RT C a lr e a d y a c q u i r e d
ju r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e p e r s o n o f t h e
p en d en c y of th e a p p ea l .
accused p e t i t i o ne r wh e n he
a p p e a r e d a t t h e a r r a i gnm e nt a nd
By v i r t u e o f t h e s e c o n d p a r a g r a p h o f t h e p le a d e d n o t gu i l t y t o t h e c r i m e
a bo v e qu o t e d p r o v i s i o n, t h e a c t o f j u m p i n g b a i l , c h a r ge d n o t wi t h s t a nd i ng t h e f a c t
a m o n g o t h e r t h i n g s , wi l l r e s u lt i n t h e o u t r i g h t t h a t h e ju m p e d ba i l a nd i s n o w
c o ns i d e r e d a f u gi t i v e .

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


71
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

at that point and in the factual ambience therefore, be


considered as being constructively and legally under custody.
Thus in the likewise peculiar circumstance which attended the
75. PADERANGA VS CA (247 SCRA 741) filing of his bail application with the trail court, for purposes of
Facts: the hearing thereof he should be deemed to have voluntarily
submitted his person to the custody of the law and, necessarily,
Paderanga was charged with the crime of multiple to the jurisdiction of the trial court which thereafter granted
murder. Paderanga, through his counsel, filed a Motion bail as prayed for. In fact, an arrest is made either by actual
for Admission of Bail before a Warrant of Arrest could be restraint of the arrestee or merely by his submission to the
issued by the lower court. custody of the person making the arrest. The latter mode may
However, Paderanga was unable to appear for be exemplified by the so-called "house arrest" or, in case of
the hearing due to an ailment that needed medical attention. military offenders, by being "confined to quarters" or restricted
His counsel manifested that they were submitting custody over to the military camp area.
the person of their client to the local chapter president of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines and that, for purposes of said
hearing, he considered being in the custody of the law.
VII. RULE 115 (RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED)
The Court of Appeals denied the petitioner’s motion
for reconsideration on his right to bail. The Court of
Appeals reasoned that Paderanga was granted bail when 76. ALI VS CASTRO (151 SCRA 279)
was not in the custody of the law, thus not eligible for the grant
of the petition. Facts:

Issues: Respondents who were members of the Philippine marine and


1. WON it is proper to admit bail even though petitioner defense forces raided the compound occupied by petitioner in
is not yet in custody of law. search of loose firearms, ammunitions and explosives. A shoot-
2. WON Paderanga may considered in custody of the out ensued after petitioners resisted the intrusion by the
law? respondents, killing a number of men. The following morning,
the petitioners were arrested and subjected to finger –printing,
Ruling: paraffin testing and photographing despite their objection.
Several kinds of rifle, grenades and ammunitions were also
confiscated.
1. No.
The petitioners filed an injunction suit with a prayer to have the
Section 1 of Rule 114, as amended, defines bail as the security items illegally seized returned to them and invoked the
given for the release of a person in custody of the law, furnished provisions on the Bill of Rights
by him or a bondsman, conditioned upon his appearing before
any court as required under the conditions specified in said The respondents admitted that the operation was done without
Rule. a warrant but reasoned that they were acting under superior
orders and that operation was necessary because of the
Its main purpose, then, is to relieve an accused from the rigors aggravation of the peace and order problem due to the
of imprisonment until his conviction and yet secure his assassination of the city mayor.
appearance at the trial. As bail is intended to obtain or secure
one's provisional liberty, the same cannot be posted before Issue:
custody over him has been acquired by the judicial authorities,
either by his lawful arrest or voluntary surrender. As this Court Whether or not the seizing of the items and the taking of the
has put it in a case "it would be incongruous to grant bail to one fingerprints and photographs of the petitioners and subjecting
who is free." them to paraffin testing are violative of the bill of Rights and are
inadmissible as evidence against them.
2. Yes.
Ruling:
In the case of herein petitioner, it may be conceded that he had
indeed filed his motion for admission to bail before he was
actually and physically placed under arrest. He may, however,

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


72
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

The court held that superior orders nor the suspicion that the lieu of the seminal fluid found inside the victims (cadaver)
respondents had against petitioners did not excuse the former vaginal canal; (2) the blood sample taken from is violative of his
from observing the guaranty provided for by the constitution constitutional right against self-incrimination; and the conduct of
against unreasonable searches and seizure. The petitioners
DNA testing is also in violation on prohibition against ex-
were entitled to due process and should be protected from
the arbitrary actions of those tasked to execute the law. postfacto laws.
Furthermore, there was no showing that the operation was
urgent nor was there any showing of the petitioners as Issue :WON the blood sample taken from him as well as the
criminals or fugitives of justice to merit approval by virtue of DNA tests were conducted in violation of his right to remain
Rule 113, Section 5 of the Rules of Court. silent as well as his right against self-incrimination under Secs.
12 and 17 of Art. III of the Constitution.
The items seized, having been the “fruits of the poisonous tree”
were held inadmissible as evidence in any proceedings against Held:
the petitioners. The operation by the respondents was done
without a warrant and so the items seized during said operation
This contention is untenable. The kernel of the right is
should not be acknowledged in court as evidence. But said
not against all compulsion, but against testimonial
evidence should remain in the custody of the law.
compulsion.37 The right against self- incrimination is simply
against the legal process of extracting from the lips of the
However, as to the issue on finger-printing, photographing and accused an admission of guilt. It does not apply where the
paraffin-testing as violative of the provision against self- evidence sought to be excluded is not an incrimination but as
incrimination, the court held that the prohibition against self- part of object evidence.
incrimination applies to testimonial compulsion only. As Justice
Holmes put it in Holt v. United States, 18 “The prohibition of
We ruled in People v. Rondero38 that although accused-
compelling a man in a criminal court to be a witness against
appellant insisted that hair samples were forcibly taken from
himself is a prohibition of the use of physical or moral
him and submitted to the National Bureau of Investigation for
compulsion to extort communications from him, not an
forensic examination, the hair samples may be admitted in
exclusion of his body as evidence when it may be material.
evidence against him, for what is proscribed is the use of
testimonial compulsion or any evidence communicative in
nature acquired from the accused under duress.

77. PEOPLE VS TODELO (320 SCRA 383) C/O Hence, a person may be compelled to submit to fingerprinting,
PAGAPONG photographing, paraffin, blood and DNA, as there is no
testimonial compulsion involved. Under People v.
Gallarde,39 where immediately after the incident, the police
78. PEOPLE VS YATAR (428 SCRA 504) authorities took pictures of the accused without the presence of
counsel, we ruled that there was no violation of the right against
Principle: self-incrimination. The accused may be compelled to submit to
a physical examination to determine his involvement in an
 The right against self- incrimination is simply against offense of which he is accused.
the legal process of extracting from the lips of the
accused an admission of guilt. It does not apply where
the evidence sought to be excluded is not an
incrimination but as part of object evidence. 79. VILLAFLOR VS SUMMERS (41 PHIL 62)

Facts: Facts:

Yatar was accused of the special complex crime of Rape with Petitioner Villaflor was charged with the crime of adultery. The
Homicide and was convicted for the same by the RTC of trial judge ordered the petitioner to subject herself into
Kalinga. Thereafter, he made an appeal to the Honorable physical examination to test whether or not she was pregnant
Supreme Court in order to assail the court a quos decision. On appeal, to prove and determine the crime of adultery being charged to
Yatar avers that: (1) the trial court erred in giving much her. Herein petitioner refused to such physical examination
weight to the evidence DNA testing or analysis done on him, in interposing the defense that such examination was a violation

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


73
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

of her constitutional rights against self-incrimination.


81. US VS TAN TENG (23 PHIL 145)

Issue: Whether or Not the physical examination was a violation PRINCIPLE:


of the petitioner’s constitutional rights against self-  The prohibition of self-incrimination in the Bill of
Rights is a prohibition of the use of physical or moral
incrimination.
compulsion to extort communications from him, and
not an exclusion of his body as evidence, when it may
Held: be material.

No. It is not a violation of her constitutional rights. The


constitutional guaranty, that no person shall be compelled in Facts:
any criminal case to be a witness against himself, is limited to a
prohibition against compulsory testimonial self-incrimination. The defendant herein raped Oliva Pacomio, a seven-year-old
The corollary to the proposition is that, an ocular inspection of
girl. Tan Teng was gambling near the house of the victim and it
the body of the accused is permissible.
was alleged that he entered her home and threw the victim on

the floor and place his private parts over hers. Several days
80. ONG VS SHIU HONG (36 PHIL 735) later, Pacomio was suffering from a disease called gonorrhea.
Facts:
Pacomio told her sister about what had happened and reported
Ong Siu Hong was forced to discharge the morphine from his
it to the police.
mouth. Ong Siu Hong appears to have been convicted by the
lower court, based on the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, Tan Teng was called to appear in a police line-up and the
who were members of the Secret Service. Ong Siu Hong's
victim identified him. He was then stripped of his clothing and
counsel raised the constitutional question that the accused was
compelled to be a witness against himself. was examined by a policeman. He was found to have the

Issue:Whether Ong Siu Hong was compelled to be a witness same symptoms of gonorrhea. The policeman took a portion of
against himself when the morphine was forced from his mouth. the substance emitting from the body of the defendant and

Held: turned it over to the Bureau of Science. The results showed that

By analogy, the decision of the Supreme Court of the Philippine the defendant was suffering from gonorrhea.
Islands in U. S. vs. Tan Teng (23 Phil. 145[1912]), following The lower court held that the results show that the disease that
leading authorities, and the persuasive decisions of other
courts of last resort, are conclusive. To force a prohibited drug the victim had acquired came from the defendant herein. Such
from the person of an accused is along the same line as disease was transferred by the unlawful act of carnal
requiring him to exhibit himself before the court; or putting in
evidence papers and other articles taken from the room of an knowledge by the latter. The defendant alleged that the said
accused in his absence; or, as in the Tan Teng case, taking a evidence should be inadmissible because it was taken in
substance from the body of the accused to be used in proving
his guilt. It would be a forced construction of the paragraph of violation of his right against self-incrimination.
the Philippine Bill of Rights in question to hold that any article,
substance, or thing taken from a person accused of crime could
not be given in evidence. The main purpose of this Issue: Whether or Not the physical examination conducted was
constitutional provision is to prohibit testimonial compulsion a violation of the defendant’s rights against self-incrimination.
by oral examination in order to extort unwilling confessions
from prisoners implicating them in the commission of a crime.

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


74
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

done by the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory


and not by the NBI. His request was, however, denied. He also
requested to be allowed to call his lawyer prior to the taking of
Held:
his urine sample, to no avail.

The court held that the taking of a substance from his body was ISSUE: Whether or not the drug test conducted upon the
petitioner is legal.
not a violation of the said right. He was neither compelled to

make any admissions or to answer any questions. The RULING:


substance was taken from his body without his objection and
We declare that the drug test conducted upon petitioner is not
was examined by competent medical authority. grounded upon any existing law or jurisprudence.

The prohibition of self-incrimination in the Bill of Rights is a


The drug test in Section 15 does not cover persons
prohibition of the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort apprehended or arrested for any unlawful act, but only for
unlawful acts listed under Article II of R.A. 9165.
communications from him, and not an exclusion of his body as
First, "[a] person apprehended or arrested" cannot literally
evidence, when it may be material. It would be the same as if
mean any person apprehended or arrested for any crime. The
the offender apprehended was a thief and the object stolen by phrase must be read in context and understood in consonance
with R.A. 9165. Section 15 comprehends persons arrested or
him may be used as evidence against him. apprehended for unlawful acts listed under Article II of the law.

Hence, a drug test can be made upon persons who are


apprehended or arrested for, among others, the
82. PEOPLE VS DELA CRUZ (COMPULSORY "importation," "sale, trading, administration, dispensation,
DRUG TESTING) delivery, distribution and transportation", "manufacture" and
"possession" of dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors
PRINCIPLE: and essential chemicals; possession thereof "during parties,
social gatherings or meetings" ; being "employees and visitors
 The RTC and the CA, therefore, both erred when they of a den, dive or resort"; "maintenance of a den, dive or
held that the extraction of petitioner’s urine for resort"; "illegal chemical diversion of controlled precursors and
purposes of drug testing was "merely a mechanical act, essential chemicals" ; "manufacture or delivery" or
hence, falling outside the concept of a custodial "possession" of equipment, instrument, apparatus, and other
investigation." paraphernalia for dangerous drugs and/or controlled
precursors and essential chemicals; possession of dangerous
The drug test was a violation of petitioner’s right to privacy and drugs "during parties, social gatherings or meetings" ;
right against self-incrimination. "unnecessary" or "unlawful" prescription thereof; "cultivation
or culture of plants classified as dangerous drugs or are sources
FACTS: thereof"; and "maintenance and keeping of original records of
transactions on dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors
Petitioner Jaime D. dela Cruz, a public officer as PO2 of PNP and essential chemicals." To make the provision applicable to
all persons arrested or apprehended for any crime not listed
Cebu City, was charged with violation of Section 15, Article II of
under Article II is tantamount to unduly expanding its meaning.
Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9165, or The Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002, by the Graft Investigation and Prosecution Note that accused appellant here was arrested in the alleged act
Officer of the Office of the Ombudsman – Visayas. When of extortion.
arraigned, petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge.
The drug test is not covered by allowable non-testimonial
Petitioner denied the charges and testified that while eating at compulsion.
Jollibee, he was arrested allegedly for extortion by NBI agents.
When he was at the NBI Office, he was required to extract urine We find that petitioner never raised the alleged irregularity of
for drug examination, but he refused saying he wanted it to be his arrest before his arraignment and raises the issue only now

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


75
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

before this tribunal; hence, he is deemed to have waived his of his efforts proved futile, because he was still compelled to
right to question the validity of his arrest curing whatever submit his urine for drug testing under those circumstances.
defect may have attended his arrest. However, "a waiver of an
illegal warrantless arrest does not mean a waiver of the
inadmissibility of evidence seized during an illegal warrantless
arrest."
83. CHAVEZ VS CA (24 SCRA 663)

We are aware of the prohibition against testimonial compulsion Principle:


and the allowable exceptions to such proscription. Cases where  Under our own Rules of Court, to grant the remedy to
non-testimonial compulsion has been allowed reveal, however, the accused Roger Chavez whose case presents a clear
that the pieces of evidence obtained were all material to the picture of disregard of a constitutional right is
principal cause of the arrest. absolutely proper. Section 1 of Rule 102 extends the
writ of Habeas Corpus, unless otherwise expressly
The constitutional right of an accused against self- provided by law, “to all cases of illegal confinement or
incrimination proscribes the use of physical or moral detention by which any person is deprived of his
compulsion to extort communications from the accused and not liberty, or by which the rightful custody of any person
the inclusion of his body in evidence when it may be material. is withheld from the person entitled thereto.
Purely mechanical acts are not included in the prohibition as
the accused does not thereby speak his guilt, hence the Facts:
assistance and guiding hand of counsel is not required. (People Judgment of conviction was for qualified theft of a motor
vs. Olvis, 238 Phil. 513 [1987]) The essence of the right against vehicle(thunderbird car together with accessories). An
self incrimination is testimonial compulsion, that is, the giving information was filed against the accused together with other
of evidence against himself through a testimonial act. (People accused,that they conspired, with intent to gain and abuse of
vs. Casinillo, 213 SCRA 777 [1992]; People vs. Tranca, 235 SCRA confidence without theconsent of owner Dy Lim, took
455 [1994]; People vs. Rondero, 378 Phil. 123 [1999]) Hence, it the vehicle.All the accused plead not guilty. During the trial, the
has been held that a woman charged with adultery may be fiscal grecia (prosecution) asked roger Chavez to be thefirst
compelled to submit to physical examination to determine her witness. Counsel of the accused opposed. Fiscal Grecia contends
pregnancy; (Villaflor vs. Summers, 41 Phil. 62 [1920]) and an that the accused (Chavez) will only be an ordinary witness not
accused may be compelled to submit to physical examination an state witness. Counsel of accused answer that it will only
and to have a substance taken from his body for medical incriminate his client. But the jugde ruled in favor of the fiscal.
determination as to whether he was suffering from gonorrhea Petitioner was convicted.
which was contracted by his victim;(U.S. vs. Tan Teng, 23 Phil.
145 [1912]) to expel morphine from his mouth; (U.S. vs. Ong Siu ISSUE: Whether or not constitutional right of Chavez against
Hong, 36 Phil. 735 [1917]) to have the outline of his foot traced self – incrimination had been violated – to warrant writ of
to determine its identity with bloody footprints; (U.S. vs. Salas, Habeas Corpus?
25 Phil. 337 [1913]; U.S. vs. Zara, 42 Phil. 308 [1921]) and to be
photographed or measured, or his garments or shoes removed HELD:
or replaced, or to move his body to enable the foregoing things
to be done.(People vs. Otadora, 86 Phil. 244 [1950]) (Emphasis YES. Petitioner was forced to testify to incriminate himself, in
supplied) full breach of his constitutional right to remain silent. It cannot
be said now that he has waived his right. He did not volunteer
In the instant case, we fail to see how a urine sample could be to take the stand and in his own defense; he did not offer
material to the charge of extortion. The RTC and the CA, himself as a witness;
therefore, both erred when they held that the extraction of Juxtaposed with the circumstances of the case heretofore
petitioner’s urine for purposes of drug testing was "merely a adverted to, make waiver a shaky defense. It cannot stand. If, by
mechanical act, hence, falling outside the concept of a custodial his own admission, defendant proved his guilt, still, his original
investigation." claim remains valid. For the privilege, we say again, is a rampart
that gives protection – even to the guilty
The drug test was a violation of petitioner’s right to privacy and
right against self-incrimination. Habeas corpus is a high prerogative writ. It is traditionally
considered as an exceptional remedy to release a person
whose liberty is illegally restrained such as when the
It is incontrovertible that petitioner refused to have his urine accused’s constitutional rights are disregarded. Such defect
extracted and tested for drugs. He also asked for a lawyer prior results in the absence or loss of jurisdiction and therefore
to his urine test. He was adamant in exercising his rights, but all

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


76
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

invalidates the trial and the consequent conviction of the reclusion perpetua except SPO2 Maderal who was yet to be
accused whose fundamental right was violated. That void arraigned at that time being at large. Upon automatic review,
judgment of conviction may be challenged by collateral the SC acquitted the accused on the ground of reasonable doubt.
attack, which precisely is the function of habeas
corpus. This writ may issue even if another remedy which is In Sept. 1999, Maderal was arrested. He executed a sworn
less effective may be availed of by the defendant. Thus, failure confession and identified the petitioners as the ones
by the accused to perfect his appeal before the Court of Appeals responsible for the death of the victims, so, Tuliao filed a
does not preclude a recourse to the writ. The writ may be criminal complaint for murder against the petitioners. Acting
granted upon a judgment already final. For, as explained in Presiding Judge Tumaliuan issued a warrant of arrest against
Johnson vs. Zerbst, the writ of habeas corpus as an the petitioners and SPO2 Maderal.
extraordinary remedy must be liberally given effect so as to
protect well a person whose liberty is at stake. The propriety of Then, the petitioners filed an urgent motion to complete
the writ was given the nod in that case, involving a violation of preliminary investigation, to reinvestigate, and to recall or
another constitutional right, in this wise: quash the warrant of arrest. In the hearing of the urgent motion,
Judge Tumaliuan noted the absence of the petitioners and
A court’s jurisdiction at the beginning of trial may be lost “in the issued a Joint order denying the urgent motion on the ground
course of the proceedings” due to failure to complete the court — that since the court did not acquire jurisdiction over their
as the Sixth Amendment requires — by providing Counsel for an persons, the motion cannot be properly heard by the court.
accused who is unable to obtain Counsel, who has not intelligently Subsequently, the new Presiding Judge Anghad took over the
waived this constitutional guaranty, and whose life or liberty is case and issued a Joint Order reversing the Joint Order of Judge
at stake. If this requirement of the Sixth Amendment is not Tumaliuan and he ordered the cancellation of the warrant of
complied with, the court no longer has jurisdiction to proceed. arrest issued against petitioner Miranda. He likewise applied
The judgment of conviction pronounced by a court without this Order to petitioners Ocon and Dalmacio. State Prosecutor
jurisdiction is void, and one imprisoned thereunder may obtain Reyes and respondent Tuliao moved for the reconsideration of
release of habeas corpus. the said Joint Order and prayed for the inhibition of Judge
Anghad, but the motion for reconsideration and prayer for
inhibition were denied.

84. BELTRAN VS SAMSON ET AL (53 PHIL ISSUE: Whether or not a motion to quash a warrant of arrest
570)  C/O SITOY requires jurisdiction over the person of the accused.
85. PEOPLE VS MONTEJO  SAME WITH NO.
HELD:
4
86. PEOPLE VS CARRREDO (3/14/1990)  Adjudication of a motion to quash a warrant of
C/O SITOY arrest requires neither jurisdiction over the person of the
accused, nor custody of law over the body of the accused.
VIII. RULE 116- 117-118 (ARRAIGNMENT &PLEA /
Custody of the law is required before the court can act
MOTION TO QUASH / PRE-TRIAL) upon the application for bail, but is not required for the
adjudication of other reliefs sought by the defendant where the
mere application therefor constitutes a waiver of the defense of
87. MIRANDA VS TULIAO (3/21/2006) lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused.8 Custody of the
law is accomplished either by arrest or voluntary
FACTS: surrender,9 while jurisdiction over the person of the accused is
acquired upon his arrest or voluntary appearance. 10 One can be
On March 1996, two burnt cadavers were discovered under the custody of the law but not yet subject to the jurisdiction
in Ramon, Isabela which were later identified as the bodies of of the court over his person, such as when a person arrested by
Vicente Bauzon and Elizer Tuliao, son of the private respondent virtue of a warrant files a motion before arraignment to quash
Virgilio Tuliao who is now under the witness protection the warrant. On the other hand, one can be subject to the
program. jurisdiction of the court over his person, and yet not be in the
custody of the law, such as when an accused escapes custody after
Two Informations for murder were filed against 5 police his trial has commenced. 11 Being in the custody of the law
officers including SPO2 Maderal in the RTC of Santiago City. The signifies restraint on the person, who is thereby deprived of his
venue was later transferred to the RTC of Manila. The RTC own will and liberty, binding him to become obedient to the will
convicted the accused and sentenced them two counts of of the law. 12 Custody of the law is literally custody over the body

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


77
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

of the accused. It includes, but is not limited to, detention. (Judge 88. PHILIPPINE SAVINGS BANK VS SPOUSES
D made a distinction between these 2 in his previous BERMOY (SEPT. 26, 2005)
discussion.)
FACTS:
As a general rule, one who seeks an affirmative relief
is deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the
court. 15 As we held in the aforecited case of Santiago, seeking Based on a complaint filed by petitioner Philippine
an affirmative relief in court, whether in civil or criminal Savings Bank ("petitioner"), respondents Pedrito and Gloria
proceedings, constitutes voluntary appearance. Bermoy ("respondent spouses") were charged with estafa thru
falsification of a public document in the Regional Trial Court,
There is, however, an exception to the rule that filing Manila, Branch 38 ("trial court"). Upon arraignment,
pleadings seeking affirmative relief constitutes voluntary respondent spouses pleaded "not guilty" to the charge.
appearance, and the consequent submission of one’s person to
the jurisdiction of the court. This is in the case of pleadings After the prosecution rested its case, the defense filed,
whose prayer is precisely for the avoidance of the jurisdiction with leave of court, a demurrer to evidence on the ground that
of the court, which only leads to a special appearance. These the prosecution failed to identify respondent spouses as the
pleadings are: accused. The trial court dismissed the case.

1. in civil cases, motions to dismiss on the Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court
ground of lack of jurisdiction over the of Appeals. The CA denied petition holding that the trial court
person of the defendant, whether or not was correct in granting the demurrer to evidence for
other grounds for dismissal are insufficiency of evidence on account of lack of proper
included; 18 identification of the accused. But even assuming that the trial
2. in criminal cases, motions to quash a court erred, the acquittal of the accused can no longer be
complaint on the ground of lack of reviewed either on appeal or on petition for certiorari for it
jurisdiction over the person of the would violate the right of the accused against double jeopardy.
accused; and
3. motions to quash a warrant of arrest. The
Thus this petition. The Solicitor General contends that
first two are consequences of the fact that
the trial court’s dismissal of the criminal case was tainted with
failure to file them would constitute a
grave abuse of discretion thus, double jeopardy does not apply
waiver of the defense of lack of
in this case.
jurisdiction over the person. The third is a
consequence of the fact that it is the very
legality of the court process forcing the ISSUE: Whether or not double jeopardy had allegedly attached
submission of the person of the accused in the case.
that is the very issue in a motion to quash
a warrant of arrest. (As discussed by HELD:
Judge D He focused on the 3 grounds
were the appearance of the accused does The petition has no merit.
not amount to voluntary appearance in
court.)
Paragraph 1, Section 7, Rule 117 ("Section 7") of the 1985 Rules
on Criminal Procedure14 on double jeopardy provides:
In criminal cases, jurisdiction over the person of the
accused is deemed waived by the accused when he files any
pleading seeking an affirmative relief, except in cases when he Former conviction or acquittal; double jeopardy. — When an
invokes the special jurisdiction of the court by impugning such accused has been convicted or acquitted, or the case against
jurisdiction over his person. Therefore, in narrow cases him dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express
involving special appearances, an accused can invoke the consent by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon a valid
processes of the court even though there is neither jurisdiction complaint or information or other formal charge sufficient in
over the person nor custody of the law. However, if a person form and substance to sustain a conviction and after the
invoking the special jurisdiction of the court applies for bail, he accused had pleaded to the charge, the conviction or acquittal
must first submit himself to the custody of the law. of the accused or the dismissal of the case shall be a bar to
another prosecution for the offense charged, or for any attempt
to commit the same or frustration thereof, or for any offense

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


78
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the entertaining such appeal as it seeks an inquiry into the merits
offense charged in the former complaint or information. of the dismissal.

For double jeopardy to apply, Section 7 requires the


following elements in the first criminal case: 89. IVLER VS SAN PEDRO

a) The complaint or information or other formal FACTS:


charge was sufficient in form and substance to
sustain a conviction; Following a vehicular collision in August 2004,
b) The court had jurisdiction; petitioner Jason Ivler (petitioner) was charged before the
c) The accused had been arraigned and had MeTC, with two separate offenses: (1) Reckless Imprudence
pleaded; and Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries (Criminal Case No.
d) He was convicted or acquitted or the case was 82367) for injuries sustained by respondent Evangeline L.
dismissed without his express consent. Ponce (respondent Ponce); and (2) Reckless Imprudence
Resulting in Homicide and Damage to Property (Criminal
On the last element, the rule is that a dismissal with the express Case No. 82366) for the death of respondent Ponce’s
consent or upon motion of the accused does not result in double husband Nestor C. Ponce and damage to the spouses
jeopardy. However, this rule is subject to two exceptions, Ponce’s vehicle. Petitioner posted bail for his temporary
namely, if the dismissal is based on insufficiency of evidence or release in both cases.
on the denial of the right to speedy trial.16 A dismissal upon
demurrer to evidence falls under the first exception.17 Since On 7 September 2004, petitioner pleaded guilty to the
such dismissal is based on the merits, it amounts to an charge in Criminal Case No. 82367 and was meted out the
acquittal.18 penalty of public censure. Invoking this conviction, petitioner
moved to quash the Information in Criminal Case No. 82366 for
As the Court of Appeals correctly held, the elements required in placing him in jeopardy of second punishment for the same
Section 7 were all present in the criminal case. Thus, the offense of reckless imprudence.
Information for estafa through falsification of a public
document against respondent spouses was sufficient in form The MeTC refused quashal, finding no identity of
and substance to sustain a conviction. The trial court had offenses in the two cases.
jurisdiction over the case and the persons of respondent
spouses. Respondent spouses were arraigned during which After unsuccessfully seeking reconsideration,
they entered "not guilty" pleas. Finally, the case was dismissed petitioner elevated the matter to the Regional Trial Court of
for insufficiency of evidence. Consequently, the right not to be Pasig City, Branch 157 (RTC), in a petition for certiorari (S.C.A.
placed twice in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense No. 2803). Meanwhile, petitioner sought from the MeTC the
became vested on respondent spouses. suspension of proceedings in Criminal Case No. 82366,
including the arraignment on 17 May 2005, invoking S.C.A. No.
The Extent of the Right Against Double Jeopardy 2803 as a prejudicial question. Without acting on petitioner’s
motion, the MeTC proceeded with the arraignment and,
The right against double jeopardy can be invoked if (a) the because of petitioner’s absence, cancelled his bail and ordered
accused is charged with the same offense in two separate his arrest.4 Seven days later, the MeTC issued a resolution
pending cases, or (b) the accused is prosecuted anew for the denying petitioner’s motion to suspend proceedings and
same offense after he had been convicted or acquitted of such postponing his arraignment until after his arrest.5 Petitioner
offense, or (c) the prosecution appeals from a judgment in sought reconsideration but as of the filing of this petition, the
the same case.19 The last is based on Section 2, Rule 122 of the motion remained unresolved.
Rules of Court20 which provides that "[a]ny party may appeal
from a final judgment or order, except if the accused would Relying on the arrest order against petitioner,
be placed thereby in double jeopardy." respondent Ponce sought in the RTC the dismissal of S.C.A. No.
2803 for petitioner’s loss of standing to maintain the suit.
Here, petitioner seeks a review of the Order dismissing the Petitioner contested the motion.
criminal case for insufficiency of evidence. It is in effect
appealing from a judgment of acquittal. By mandate of the The RTC dismissed S.C.A. No. 2803, narrowly
Constitution21 and Section 7, the courts are barred from grounding its ruling on petitioner’s forfeiture of standing to
maintain S.C.A. No. 2803 arising from the MeTC’s order to arrest

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


79
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

petitioner for his non-appearance at the arraignment in constitutional right under the Double Jeopardy Clause. True,
Criminal Case No. 82366. Thus, without reaching the merits of they are thereby denied the beneficent effect of the favorable
S.C.A. No. 2803, the RTC effectively affirmed the MeTC. sentencing formula under Article 48, but any disadvantage thus
Petitioner sought reconsideration but this proved unavailing. caused is more than compensated by the certainty of non-
prosecution for quasi-crime effects qualifying as "light
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner's conviction in the first offenses" (or, as here, for the more serious consequence
offense charged, bars his prosecution in the second offense prosecuted belatedly). If it is so minded, Congress can re-craft
charged. Article 365 by extending to quasi-crimes the sentencing
formula of Article 48 so that only the most severe penalty shall
be imposed under a single prosecution of all resulting acts,
HELD:
whether penalized as grave, less grave or light offenses. This
will still keep intact the distinct concept of quasi-offenses.
Yes. The MeTC is mistaken in finding that the two
cases of reckless imprudence are entirely separate offenses
using the basis that the Second Criminal Case required proof of
an additional fact which the First Criminal Case does not. 90. CAES VS CA (11/6/1989)

Principle:
The two charges against petitioner, arising from the
same facts, were prosecuted under the same provision of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended, namely, Article 365 defining  Fittingly described as "res judicata in prison grey,"
and penalizing quasi-offenses. The High Court reasoned that the right against double jeopardy prohibits the
reckless imprudence is a single crime, its consequences on prosecution of a person for a crime of which he has
persons and property are material only to determine the been previously acquitted or convicted. The purpose
penalty. The doctrine that reckless imprudence under Article is to set the effects of the first prosecution forever at
365 is a single quasi-offense by itself and not merely a means to rest, assuring the accused that he shall not thereafter
commit other crimes such that conviction or acquittal of such
be subjected to the danger and anxiety of a second
quasi-offense bars subsequent prosecution for the same quasi-
offense, regardless of its various resulting acts. charge against him for the same offense. It has been
held in a long line of cases that to constitute double
Reason and precedent both coincide in that once jeopardy, there must be: (a) a valid complaint or
convicted or acquitted of a specific act of reckless imprudence, information; (b) filed before a competent court; (c) to
the accused may not be prosecuted again for that same act. For which the defendant had pleaded; and (d) of which he
the essence of the quasi offense of criminal negligence under had been previously acquitted or convicted or which
article 365 of the Revised Penal Code lies in the execution of an was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his
imprudent or negligent act that, if intentionally done, would be
express consent.
punishable as a felony. The law penalizes thus the negligent or
careless act, not the result thereof. The gravity of the
There are instances in fact when the dismissal will be
consequence is only taken into account to determine the
penalty, it does not qualify the substance of the offense. And, as held to be final and to dispose of the case once and for all even
the careless act is single, whether the injurious result should if the dismissal was made on motion of the accused himself. The
affect one person or several persons, the offense (criminal first is where the dismissal is based on a demurrer to the
negligence) remains one and the same, and can not be split into evidence filed by the accused after the prosecution has rested.
different crimes and prosecutions. Such dismissal has the effect of a judgment on the merits and
operates as an acquittal. The other exception is where the
Prosecutions under Article 365 should proceed from dismissal is made, also on motion of the accused, because
a single charge regardless of the number or severity of the of the denial of his right to a speedy trial. This is in effect a
consequences. In imposing penalties, the judge will do no
more than apply the penalties under Article 365 for each failure to prosecute.
consequence alleged and proven. In short, there shall be no
splitting of charges under Article 365, and only one Facts:
information shall be filed in the same first level court.55
On 21 November 1981, Joel Caes was charged in two
separate informations with illegal possession of firearms and
The ruling today secures for the accused facing an
Article 365 charge a stronger and simpler protection of their illegal possession of marijuana before the Court of First

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


80
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

Instance of Rizal. The cases were consolidated on 10 December even if so designated if it is shown that it was made without the
1981. Arraignment was originally scheduled on 11 January express consent of the accused. This consent cannot be
1982, but was for some reason postponed. On 31 August 1982, presumed nor may it be merely implied from the defendant's
Caes was arraigned and pleaded not guilty. Trial was scheduled silence or his failure to object As held in a number of cases, such
for 13 October 1982, but this was reset upon agreement of the consent must be express, so as to leave no doubt as to the
parties and was reset a couple of times more for various defendant's conformity. Otherwise, the dismissal will be
reasons. On 14 November 1983, the prosecution moved for the regarded as final, i.e., with prejudice to the refiling of the case.
provisional dismissal of the case because its witnesses had not
appeared. On the same date, Judge Alfredo M. Gorgonio issued There are instances in fact when the dismissal will
the order provisionally dismissing the case. On 9 January 1984, be held to be final and to dispose of the case once and for
a motion to revive the cases was filed by Maj. Dacanay (he had all even if the dismissal was made on motion of the accused
been promoted in the meantime) and Sgt. Lustado, who alleged himself. The first is where the dismissal is based on a
that they could not attend the hearing scheduled on 14 demurrer to the evidence filed by the accused after the
November 1983, for lack of notice. Copy of the motion was prosecution has rested. Such dismissal has the effect of a
furnished the City Fiscal of Caloocan City but not to Caes. On 18 judgment on the merits and operates as an acquittal. The
May 1984, the judge issued the order granting the "Motion for other exception is where the dismissal is made, also on
the Revival of the Case." A motion for reconsideration filed by motion of the accused, because of the denial of his right to
Caes but was denied and the revived cases were set for hearing a speedy trial. This is in effect a failure to prosecute.
on 19 November 1984. Caes filed the petition for certiorari with
The circumstance that the dismissal of the cases
the Supreme Court, which was referred to the appellate court.
against Caes was described by the trial judge as "provisional"
The petition there was dismissed for lack of merit on 20 May
did not change the nature of that dismissal. As it was based on
1986, and reconsideration was subsequently denied. Caes filed
the "lack of interest" of the prosecutor and the consequent
the present petition.
delay in the trial of the cases, it was final and operated as an
Issue: Whether the revival of the cases would place Caes in acquittal of the accused on the merits. No less importantly,
double jeopardy in violation of the Bill of Rights? there is no proof that Caes expressly concurred in the
provisional dismissal. Implied consent is not enough; neither
Ruling: may it be lightly inferred from the presumption of regularity,
for we are dealing here with the alleged waiver of a
Fittingly described as "res judicata in prison grey," constitutional right. Any doubt on this matter must be resolved
the right against double jeopardy prohibits the prosecution of a in favor of the accused.
person for a crime of which he has been previously acquitted or
convicted. The purpose is to set the effects of the first
prosecution forever at rest, assuring the accused that he shall
not thereafter be subjected to the danger and anxiety of a 91. LOS BANOS VS PEDRO (4/22/2009)
second charge against him for the same offense. It has been held Principle:
in a long line of cases that to constitute double jeopardy, there
must be: (a) a valid complaint or information; (b) filed before a
competent court; (c) to which the defendant had pleaded; and  The effects of sustaining a motion to quash, the
(d) of which he had been previously acquitted or convicted or dismissal is not a bar to another prosecution for the
which was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his
same offense unless the basis for the dismissal is the
express consent.
extinction of criminal liability and double jeopardy.
There is no question that the first three requisites are
present in the present case. It is settled that a case may be
 To recapitulate, quashal and provisional dismissal are
dismissed if the dismissal is made on motion of the accused
himself or on motion of the prosecution with the express different concepts whose respective rules refer to
consent of the accused. Such a dismissal is correctly different situations that should not be confused with
denominated provisional. But a dismissal is not provisional

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


81
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

one another. If the problem relates to an intrinsic or A first notable feature of Section 8, Rule 117 is that it
extrinsic deficiency of the complaint or information, as does not exactly state what a provisional dismissal is. The

shown on its face, the remedy is a motion to quash modifier provisional directly suggests that the dismissals which
Section 8 essentially refers to are those that are temporary in
under the terms of Section 3, Rule 117. All other
character (i.e., to dismissals that are without prejudice to the re-
reasons for seeking the dismissal of the complaint or
filing of the case), and not the dismissals that are permanent
information, before arraignment and under the
(i.e., those that bar the re-filing of the case). Based on the law,
circumstances outlined in Section 8, fall under rules, and jurisprudence, permanent dismissals are those
provisional dismissal. barred by the principle of double jeopardy, by the previous
extinction of criminal liability, by the rule on speedy trial, and
Facts: the dismissals after plea without the express consent of the
accused. Section 8, by its own terms, cannot cover these
Joel Pedro was charged in court for carrying a loaded firearm
dismissals because they are not provisional.
without authorization from the COMELEC a day before the
elections. Pedro, then filed a Motion to Quash after his Motion
for Preliminary Investigation did not materialize. The RTC A second feature is that Section 8 does not state the
granted the quashal. grounds that lead to a provisional dismissal. This is in marked
The RTC reopened the case for further proceedings in contrast with a motion to quash whose grounds are specified
which Pedro objected to citing Rule 117, Sec. 8 on provisional under Section 3. A necessary consequence is that where the
dismissal, arguing that the dismissal had become permanent.
grounds cited are those listed under Section 3, then the
The public prosecutor manifested his express appropriate remedy is to file a motion to quash, not any other
conformity with the motion to reopen the case saying that the remedy. Conversely, where a ground does not appear under
provision used applies where both the prosecution and the
Section 3, then a motion to quash is not a proper remedy. A
accused mutually consented to the dismissal of the case, or
where the prosecution or the offended party failed to object to motion for provisional dismissal may then apply if the
the dismissal of the case, and not to a situation where the conditions required by Section 8 obtain.
information was quashed upon motion of the accused and over
the objection of the prosecution. The RTC, thus, set Pedro’s
arraignment date. Pedro filed with the CA a petition for A third feature, closely related to the second, focuses
certiorari and prohibition to nullify the RTC’s mandated on the consequences of a meritorious motion to quash. This
reopening.The CA, at first granted the reopening of the case but feature also answers the question of whether the quashal of an
through Pedro's Motion for Reconsideration, his argument that
information can be treated as a provisional dismissal. Sections
a year has passed by from the receipt of the quashal order, the
CA's decision was reversed. Petitioner now argues using the 4, 5, 6, and 7 of Rule 117 unmistakably provide for the
same argument of the public prosecutor. consequences of a meritorious motion to quash. Section
4 speaks of an amendment of the complaint or information, if
Issue: Whether Section 8, Rule 117 (rule on provisional
dismissal) is applicable to the case? the motion to quash relates to a defect curable by
amendment. Section 5dwells on the effect of sustaining the
Ruling:
motion to quash - the complaint or information may be re-filed,

The SC granted the petition and remanded the case to the RTC. except for the instances mentioned under Section 6. The latter
section, on the other hand, specifies the limit of the re-filing that
Quashal v. Provisional Dismissal Section 5 allows it cannot be done where the dismissal is based

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


82
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

on extinction of criminal liability or double jeopardy. Section quash under Section 3, Section 8 and its time-bar does not
7 defines double jeopardy and complements the ground apply.
provided under Section 3(i) and the exception stated in Section
6. Other than the above, we note also the following
differences stressing that a motion to quash and its resulting
Rather than going into specifics, Section 8 simply dismissal is a unique class that should not be confused with
states when a provisional dismissal can be made, i.e., when the other dismissals:
accused expressly consents and the offended party is given
notice. The consent of the accused to a dismissal relates directly First, a motion to quash is invariably filed by the
to what Section 3(i) and Section 7 provide, i.e., the conditions accused to question the efficacy of the complaint or information
for dismissals that lead to double jeopardy. This immediately filed against him or her (Sections 1 and 2, Rule 117); in contrast,
suggests that a dismissal under Section 8 i.e., one with the a case may be provisionally dismissed at the instance of either
express consent of the accused is not intended to lead to double the prosecution or the accused, or both, subject to the
jeopardy as provided under Section 7, but nevertheless creates conditions enumerated under Section 8, Rule 117.[26]
a bar to further prosecution under the special terms of Section
8. Second, the form and content of a motion to quash are
as stated under Section 2 of Rule 117; these requirements do
This feature must be read with Section 6 which not apply to a provisional dismissal.
provides for the effects of sustaining a motion to quash the
dismissal is not a bar to another prosecution for the same Third, a motion to quash assails the validity of the
offense unless the basis for the dismissal is the extinction criminal complaint or the criminal information for defects or
of criminal liability and double jeopardy. These unique defenses apparent on face of the information; a provisional
terms, read in relation with Sections 3(i) and 7 and compared dismissal may be grounded on reasons other than the defects
with the consequences of Section 8, carry unavoidable found in the information.
implications that cannot but lead to distinctions between a
quashal and a provisional dismissal under Section 8. They Fourth, a motion to quash is allowed before the
stress in no uncertain terms that, save only for what has been arraignment (Section 1, Rule 117); there may be a provisional
provided under Sections 4 and 5, the governing rule when a dismissal of the case even when the trial proper of the case is
motion to quash is meritorious are the terms of Section 6. The already underway provided that the required consents are
failure of the Rules to state under Section 6 that a Section 8 present.[27]
provisional dismissal is a bar to further prosecution shows that
the framers did not intend a dismissal based on a motion to Fifth, a provisional dismissal is, by its own
quash and a provisional dismissal to be confused with one terms, impermanent until the time-bar applies, at which time it
another; Section 8 operates in a world of its own separate from becomes a permanent dismissal. In contrast, an information
motion to quash, and merely provides a time-bar that uniquely that is quashed stays quashed until revived; the grant of a
applies to dismissals other than those grounded on Section motion to quash does not per se carry any connotation of
3. Conversely, when a dismissal is pursuant to a motion to impermanence, and becomes so only as provided by law or by

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


83
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

The case may be revived by the State within the time-bar


the Rules. In re-filing the case, what is important is the question
either by the refiling of the Information or by the filing of a new
of whether the action can still be brought, i.e., whether the Information for the same offense or an offense necessarily
included therein.
prescription of action or of the offense has set in. In a
provisional dismissal, there can be no re-filing after the time-
Facts:
bar, and prescription is not an immediate consideration. On May 18, 1991, at around 4:00 A.M., eleven (11)
known members of the Kuratong Baleleng Gang (KBG) figured
in a shootout with the police forces during an operation
To recapitulate, quashal and provisional dismissal conducted by the Anti-Bank Robbery and Intelligence Task
are different concepts whose respective rules refer to Group (ABRITG) near the fly-over along Commonwealth
Avenue in Quezon City. All of the 11 perished that fateful day.
different situations that should not be confused with one Later, two members of the police team alleged that the killing
another. If the problem relates to an intrinsic or extrinsic was in reality a summary execution, or, in popular parlance, a
rubout.
deficiency of the complaint or information, as shown on its
face, the remedy is a motion to quash under the terms of Before the court is the petitioner’s motion of
reconsideration of the resolution dated May 23, 2002, for the
Section 3, Rule 117. All other reasons for seeking the determination of several factual issues relative to the
dismissal of the complaint or information, before application of Sec. 8 Rule 117 of RRCP on the dismissal of the
cases Q-99- 81679 and Q-99-81689 against the respondent.
arraignment and under the circumstances outlined in The respondent was charged with the shooting and killing of
Section 8, fall under provisional dismissal. eleven male persons. The court confirmed the express consent
of the respondent in the provisional dismissal of the
aforementioned cases when he filed for judicial determination.
Thus, we conclude that Section 8, Rule 117 does not The court also ruled the need to determine whether the other
facts for its application are attendant.
apply to the reopening of the case that the RTC ordered and
which the CA reversed; the reversal of the CAs order is legally
Issue: Whether or not the requisites for the applicability of Sec.
proper.
8, Rule 117 of 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure were complied
with in the Kuratong Baleleng cases?
92. PEOPLE VS LACSON (4/1/2003)

Principle: Ruling:
No. Section 8, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of
 The order of dismissal shall become permanent one
Criminal Procedure reads:
year after the issuance thereof without the case having
been revived, the provision should be construed to
mean that the order of dismissal shall become Sec. 8. Provisional dismissal. A case shall not be provisionally
permanent one year after service of the order of dismissed except with the express consent of the accused and
dismissal on the public prosecutor who has control of with notice to the offended party.
the prosecution[6] without the criminal case having
been revived. The provisional dismissal of offenses punishable by
imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years or a fine of any
The mere inaction or silence of the accused to a motion for amount, or both, shall become permanent one (1) year after
a provisional dismissal of the case[9] or his failure to object to a issuance of the order without the case having been
provisional dismissal[10] does not amount to express consent. revived. With respect to offenses punishable by imprisonment
A motion of the accused for a provisional dismissal of a of more than six (6) years, their provisional dismissal shall
case is an express consent to such provisional dismissal.[11] If a become permanent two (2) years after issuance of the order
criminal case is provisionally dismissed with the express without the case having been revived.
consent of the accused, the case may be revived only within the
periods provided in the new rule. Having invoked said rule before the petitioners-panel of
prosecutors and before the Court of Appeals, the respondent is

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


84
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

burdened to establish the essential requisites of the first consent of the accused or over his objection, the new rule would
paragraph thereof, namely: not apply. The case may be revived or refiled even beyond the
prescribed periods subject to the right of the accused to oppose
1. the prosecution with the express conformity of the accused the same on the ground of double jeopardy[12] or that such
or the accused moves for a provisional (sin perjuicio) dismissal revival or refiling is barred by the statute of limitations.[13]
of the case; or both the prosecution and the accused move for a The case may be revived by the State within the time-bar
provisional dismissal of the case; either by the refiling of the Information or by the filing of a new
Information for the same offense or an offense necessarily
2. the offended party is notified of the motion for a provisional included therein. There would be no need of a new preliminary
dismissal of the case; investigation.[14] However, in a case wherein after the
provisional dismissal of a criminal case, the original witnesses
3. the court issues an order granting the motion and dismissing of the prosecution or some of them may have recanted their
the case provisionally; testimonies or may have died or may no longer be available and
new witnesses for the State have emerged, a new preliminary
4. the public prosecutor is served with a copy of the order of investigation[15] must be conducted before an Information is
provisional dismissal of the case. refiled or a new Information is filed. A new preliminary
investigation is also required if aside from the original accused,
other persons are charged under a new criminal complaint for
The foregoing requirements are conditions sine qua the same offense or necessarily included therein; or if under a
non to the application of the time-bar in the second paragraph new criminal complaint, the original charge has been upgraded;
of the new rule. The raison d etre for the requirement of the or if under a new criminal complaint, the criminal liability of the
express consent of the accused to a provisional dismissal of a accused is upgraded from that as an accessory to that as a
criminal case is to bar him from subsequently asserting that the principal. The accused must be accorded the right to submit
revival of the criminal case will place him in double jeopardy counter-affidavits and evidence. After all, the fiscal is not called
for the same offense or for an offense necessarily included by the Rules of Court to wait in ambush; the role of a fiscal is not
therein.[5] mainly to prosecute but essentially to do justice to every man
Although the second paragraph of the new rule states that and to assist the court in dispensing that justice
the order of dismissal shall become permanent one year after In this case, the respondent has failed to prove that the
the issuance thereof without the case having been revived, the first and second requisites of the first paragraph of the new rule
provision should be construed to mean that the order of were present when Judge Agnir, Jr. dismissed Criminal Cases
dismissal shall become permanent one year after service of the Nos. Q-99-81679 to Q-99-81689. Irrefragably, the prosecution
order of dismissal on the public prosecutor who has control of did not file any motion for the provisional dismissal of the said
the prosecution[6] without the criminal case having been criminal cases. For his part, the respondent merely filed a
revived. The public prosecutor cannot be expected to comply motion for judicial determination of probable cause and for
with the timeline unless he is served with a copy of the order of examination of prosecution witnesses alleging that under
dismissal. Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution and the decision of this
Express consent to a provisional dismissal is given Court in Allado v. Diokno,[17] among other cases, there was a
either viva voce or in writing. It is a positive, direct, unequivocal need for the trial court to conduct a personal determination of
consent requiring no inference or implication to supply its probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest against
meaning.[7] Where the accused writes on the motion of a respondent and to have the prosecutions witnesses summoned
prosecutor for a provisional dismissal of the case No before the court for its examination.
objection or With my conformity, the writing amounts to
express consent of the accused to a provisional dismissal of the Since the conditions sine qua non for the application of the
case.[8] The mere inaction or silence of the accused to a motion new rule were not present when Judge Agnir, Jr. issued his
for a provisional dismissal of the case[9] or his failure to object resolution, the State is not barred by the time limit set forth in
to a provisional dismissal[10] does not amount to express the second paragraph of Section 8 of Rule 117 of the Revised
consent. Rules of Criminal Procedure. The State can thus revive or refile
Criminal Cases Nos. Q-99-81679 to Q-99-81689 or file new
A motion of the accused for a provisional dismissal of a Informations for multiple murder against the respondent.
case is an express consent to such provisional dismissal.[11] If a
criminal case is provisionally dismissed with the express
consent of the accused, the case may be revived only within the
periods provided in the new rule. On the other hand, if a 93. PEOPLE VS BALISACAN (8/31/1966)
criminal case is provisionally dismissed without the express

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


85
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

him. And he further stated that after the incident he


surrendered himself voluntarily to the police authorities. On
Doctrine: the basis of the above-mentioned testimony of the accused, the
court a quorendered a decision acquitting the accused. As
(a) A plea of guilty is an unconditional admission of stated, the prosecution appealed therefrom.
guilt with respect to the offense charged. It
forecloses the right to defend oneself from said Issue: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ACQUITTING THE
charge and leaves the court with no alternative ACCUSED OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED DESPITE THE LATTER'S
but to impose the penalty fixed by law under the PLEA OF GUILTY WHEN ARRAIGNED.
circumstances.
(b) The defendant was only allowed to testify in order
to establish mitigating circumstances, for the Ruling: Appellant's contention is meritorious. A plea of guilty
purposes of fixing the penalty. Said testimony, is an unconditional admission of guilt with respect to the
therefore, could not be taken as a trial on the offense charged. It forecloses the right to defend oneself
merits, to determine the guilt or innocence of the from said charge and leaves the court with no alternative
accused. but to impose the penalty fixed by law under the
(c) In view of the assertion of self-defense in the circumstances. (People v. Ng Pek, 81 Phil. 563). In this case,
testimony of the accused, the proper course the defendant was only allowed to testify in order to establish
should have been for the court a quo to take mitigating circumstances, for the purposes of fixing the penalty.
defendant's plea anew and then proceed with the Said testimony, therefore, could not be taken as a trial on the
trial of the case, in the order set forth in Section 3 merits, to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.
of Rule 119 of the Rules of Court
(d) It is settled that the existence of a plea is an In view of the assertion of self-defense in the testimony of
essential requisite to double jeopardy (People v. the accused, the proper course should have been for the
Ylagan, 58 Phil. 851; People v. Quimsing, L-19860, court a quo to take defendant's plea anew and then
December 23, 1964). In the present case, it is true, proceed with the trial of the case, in the order set forth in
the accused had first entered a plea of guilty. Section 3 of Rule 119 of the Rules of Court. In deciding the
Subsequently, however, he testified, in the course case upon the merits without the requisite trial, the court a
of being allowed to prove mitigating quo not only erred in procedure but deprived the prosecution
circumstances, that he acted in complete self- of its day in court and right to be heard.
defense. Said testimony, therefore — as the
court a quo recognized in its decision — had the
effect of vacating his plea of guilty and the court a This Court now turns to Section 2, Rule 122 of the Rules of
quo should have required him to plead a new on Court, which provides that: "The People of the Philippines
the charge, or at least direct that a new plea of not cannot appeal if the defendant would be placed thereby in
guilty be entered for him. This was not done. It double jeopardy." The present state of jurisprudence in this
follows that in effect there having been no regard is that the above provision applies even if the accused
standing plea at the time the court a quo rendered fails to file a brief and raise the question of double jeopardy
its judgment of acquittal, there can be no double (People v. Ferrer, L-9072, October 23, 1956; People v. Bao, L-
jeopardy with respect to the appeal herein.1 12102, September 29, 1959; People v. De Golez, L-14160, June
(e) The acquittal, therefore, being a nullity for want of 30, 1960).
due process, is no acquittal at all, and thus cannot
constitute a proper basis for a claim of former The next issue, therefore, is whether this appeal placed the
jeopardy. accused in double jeopardy. It is settled that the existence of
a plea is an essential requisite to double jeopardy (People
Facts: This is an appeal by the prosecution from a decision of v. Ylagan, 58 Phil. 851; People v. Quimsing, L-19860,
acquittal. Aurelio Balisacan was charged with homicide in the December 23, 1964). In the present case, it is true, the
CFI of Ilocos Norte. Upon being arraigned, he entered into a plea accused had first entered a plea of guilty. Subsequently,
of guilty. To this charge the accused, upon being arraigned, however, he testified, in the course of being allowed to
entered a plea of guilty. In doing so, he was assisted by counsel. prove mitigating circumstances, that he acted in complete
At his de oficio counsel's petition, however, he was allowed to self-defense. Said testimony, therefore — as the court a
present evidence to prove mitigating circumstances. quo recognized in its decision — had the effect of vacating
Thereupon the accused testified to the effect that he stabbed his plea of guilty and the court a quo should have required
the deceased in self-defense because the latter was strangling him to plead a new on the charge, or at least direct that a
new plea of not guilty be entered for him. This was not

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


86
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

done. It follows that in effect there having been no standing Held:


plea at the time the court a quo rendered its judgment of
acquittal, there can be no double jeopardy with respect to Court ruled that the filing of the complaint in the Municipal
the appeal herein.1 Court even if it be merely for purposes of preliminary
examination or investigation, should, and thus, interrupt the
Furthermore, as afore-stated, the court a quo decided the case period of prescription of the criminal responsibility, even if the
upon the merits without giving the prosecution any court where the complaint or information is filed cannot try the
opportunity to present its evidence or even to rebut the
case on the merits. This ruling was broadened by the Court in
testimony of the defendant. In doing so, it clearly acted without
due process of law. And for lack of this fundamental the case of Francisco, et.al. v. Court of Appeals, et. al. when it
prerequisite, its action is perforce null and void. The acquittal, held that the filing of the complaint with the Fiscals Office
therefore, being a nullity for want of due process, is no also suspends the running of the prescriptive period of a
acquittal at all, and thus cannot constitute a proper basis criminal offense.
for a claim of former jeopardy.
In Llenes v. Dicdican, Ingco, et al. v. Sandiganbayan, Brillante v.
CA, and Sanrio Company Limited v. Lim, cases involving special
laws, this Court held that the institution of proceedings for
94. PEOPLE VS PANGILINAN (518 SCRA 358) preliminary investigation against the accused interrupts the
period of prescription.
Principle:
95. PEOPLE VS CABALI (5/8/1990)
 The institution of proceedings for preliminary
investigation against the accused interrupts the Facts:
period of prescription.
Demetrio Cabale, Bonifacio Cualteros Florencio Daniel, and
Facts: Benito Terante alias "Bodoy" were charged in two (2) separate
informations before the Court of First Instance of Maasin,
The affidavit-complaints for the violations of BP 22 were filed
Southern Leyte, with the crimes of Robbery in Band with Less
against respondent on 16 September 1997. The cases reached
Serious Physical Injuries, docketed therein as Criminal Case No.
the MeTC of Quezon City only on 13 February 2000 because in
R-2894, for the crime committed against Ricarido Fernando;
the meanwhile, respondent filed a civil case for accounting
and Robbery in Band with Homicide, docketed therein as
followed by a petition before the City Prosecutor for suspension
Criminal Case No. R-2895, for the crime committed against
of proceedings on the ground of prejudicial question. The
Rufina Rosello.
matter was raised before the Secretary of Justice after the City
Prosecutor approved the petition to suspend proceedings. It After joint trial of the two (2) cases the accused were convicted
was only after the Secretary of Justice so ordered that the as charged.
informations for the violation of BP Blg. 22 were filed with the
MeTC of Quezon City on 7 June 2000. Accused Benito Terante alias "Bodoy" manifested his desire to
continue and pursue his appeal. He claims that there was an
On 17 June 2000, respondent filed an Omnibus Motion to Quash irregularity in his arraignment since it was done after the cases
the Information and to Defer the Issuance of Warrant of Arrest had been submitted for decision, so that he was not afforded the
before MeTC, Branch 31, Quezon City. She alleged that her chance to prepare properly for his defense.
criminal liability has been extinguished by reason of
prescription. Issue: WON arraignment after the case is submitted for
decision is fatal.
Issue: The key issue raised in this petition is whether the filing
of the affidavit-complaint for estafa and violation of BP Blg. 22 Held:
against respondent with the Office of the City Prosecutor of
Quezon City on 16 September 1997 interrupted the period of We find no merit in the appeal. On the procedural issue, we find
prescription of such offense. that while the arraignment of the appellant was conducted after
the cases had been submitted for decision, the error is non-

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


87
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

prejudicial and has been fully cured. In the case of People vs.  There is no rule which provides that simply because
Atienza, where a similar issue was raised, the Court said: the accused pleaded guilty to the charge that his
conviction automatically follows. Additional evidence
Counsel for the appellant attacks the procedure independent of the plea may be considered to
followed in the trial already referred where the two convince the judge that it was intelligently made.
accused were arraigned after the prosecution had
rested its case, and he claims that the trial court erred Facts:
in considering such evidence, especially since the trial
court itself had declared all the proceedings had This is a case where three accused were allegedly responsible
before arraignment as null and void. The error, if any, for forcibly taking things from the storeroom of the Bukidnon
is non-prejudicial. The interests of the appellant have National School of Home Industries.
not suffered thereby. His counsel entered into trial
It was established by the prosecution that the storeroom of the
without any objection on the ground that his client had
Bukidnon National School of Home Industries at Maramag,
not yet been arraigned. Said counsel cross-examined
Bukidnon, on January 20, 1987 was ransacked as shown by the
the witnesses for the prosecution. When the fiscal
testimonies of the policemen and by the keepers of the
offered to reproduce all his evidence by presenting
storeroom. After an on the spot investigation, the policemen
again his witnesses, instead of accepting said offer, he
were at a loss to identify the person or persons responsible
agreed or rather did not object to having that same
thereof.
evidence for the government declared by the court as
reproduced. We hold that this error or irregularity has Except for the accused Juan Magalop who pleaded guilty, the
not prejudiced the right or interests of the appellant, identity of the perpetrators remained a problem.
and considering that appellant's counsel had full
opportunity of cross-examining all the witnesses who RTC acquitted Magalop.
took the witness stand for the government and that
furthermore he agreed to the reproduction, of the Issue:WON conviction automatically follows after a plea of
evidence from the prosecution, the error or defect had guilty by the accused.
been substantially or fully cured.
Held:
In the instant cases, counsel for the appellant entered into trial
without objecting that his client, the appellant herein, had not No.
yet been arraigned. Said counsel had also the full opportunity
The essence of a plea of guilty is that the accused admits his
of cross-examining the witnesses for the prosecution. Then,
guilt freely, voluntarily and with full knowledge and
when the cases were being retried after the appellant had been
understanding of the precise nature of the crime charged in the
arraigned, appellant's counsel filed a joint manifestation with
information as well as the consequences of his plea. It is an
the prosecution, adopting all proceedings had previous to the
unconditional admission of guilt with respect to the offense
arraignment of the appellant. There was, therefore, no violation
charged. It forecloses the right to defend oneself from said
of the appellant's constitutional right to be informed of the
charge and leaves the court with no alternative but to impose
nature and cause of the accusation against him.
the penalty fixed by law under the circumstances. Thus, under
the 1985 New Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended, when
the accused pleads guilty to a non-capital offense, the court may
96. SANGGGUNIANG BAYAN OF GINDULMAN receive evidence from the parties to determine the penalty to
VS CASTRO (462 PHIL 391)  NOT be imposed.
FOUND
This rule is at most directory. It will certainly be a clear abuse
97. PEOPLE VS MENDOZA (231 SCRA 264) of discretion on the part of the judge to persist in holding the
Principle: accused bound to his admission of guilt and sentencing him
accordingly when the totality of the evidence points to his
acquittal. There is no rule which provides that simply because

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


88
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

the accused pleaded guilty to the charge that his conviction 99. PEOPLE VS SERZO (6/20/1997)
automatically follows. Additional evidence independent of the
plea may be considered to convince the judge that it was The right to counsel of an accused is guaranteed by our
intelligently made. Constitution, our laws and our Rules of Court. During custodial
investigation, arraignment, trial and even on appeal, the
accused is given the option to be represented by a counsel of his
choice. But when he neglects or refuses to exercise this option
during arraignment and trial, the court shall appoint one for
98. PEOPLE V DOCUMENTO (3/17/2010)
him. While the right to be represented by counsel is absolute,
the accuseds option to hire one of his own choice is limited.
It is true that the appellate court noted the trial courts failure to Such option cannot be used to sanction reprehensible dilatory
conduct the prescribed searching inquiry into the matter of tactics, to trifle with the Rules or to prejudice the equally
whether or not Documentos plea of guilt was improvidently important rights of the state and the offended party to speedy
made. Nonetheless, it still found the conviction of appellant and adequate justice.
proper. Its disquisition on Documentos plea of guilt is in point.
Accordingly, an accused may exercise his right to counsel by
With the trial courts failure to electing to be represented either by a court-appointed lawyer
comply with the guidelines, appellants guilty or by one of his own choice. While his right to be represented
plea is deemed improvidently made and thus by counsel is immutable, his option to secure the services of
rendered inefficacious. counsel de parte, however, is not absolute. The court is obliged
to balance the privilege to retain a counsel of choice against the
This does not mean, however, that statess and the offended partys equally important right to
the case should be remanded to the trial speedy and adequate justice. Thus, the court may restrict the
court. This course of action is appropriate accuseds option to retain a counsel de parte if the accused
only when the appellants guilty plea was the insists on an attorney he cannot afford, or the chosen counsel is
sole basis for his conviction. As held in People not a member of the bar, or the attorney declines to represent
v. Mira, - the accused for a valid reason, e.g. conflict of interest and the
like.
Notwithstanding
the incautiousness that Also, the right to counsel de parte is, like other personal rights,
attended appellants guilty waivable so long as (1) the waiver is not contrary to law, public
plea, we are not inclined to order, public policy, morals or good customs; or prejudicial to a
remand the case to the trial third person with a right recognized by law and (2) the waiver
court as suggested by is unequivocally, knowingly and intelligently made.
appellant. Convictions
based on an improvident The facts of this case do not constitute a deprivation of
plea of guilt are set aside appellants constitutional right to counsel because he was
only if such plea is the sole adequately represented by three court-appointed lawyers:
basis of the judgment. If the Atty. Lina-ac, Atty. Antonano and Atty. Garcia. Courts are not
trial court relied on required to await indefinitely the pleasure and convenience of
sufficient and credible the accused as they are also mandated to promote the speedy
evidence in finding the and orderly administration of justice. Nor should they
accused guilty, the countenance such an obvious trifling with the rules. Indeed,
judgment must be public policy requires that the trial continue as scheduled,
sustained, because then it considering that appellant was adequately represented by
is predicated not merely on counsels who were not shown to be negligent, incompetent or
the guilty plea of the otherwise unable to represent him.
accused but also on
evidence proving his
commission of the offense 100. PAO VS SANDIGANBAYAN
charged. (3/15/2008)

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


89
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

On March 15 and 18, 2002, Atty. Persida V. Rueda-Acosta, Chief jeopardy attaches. We ruled in Tandoc v. Resultan (G. R. Nos.
Public Attorney of PAO personally appeared before respondent 59241-44, July 5, 1989, 175 SCRA 37, 43) that:
Special Division of the Sandiganbayan to request the relief of
the appearance of PAO as de oficio counsel for accused Preliminary investigation is merely inquisitorial, and
President Joseph Estrada and Jose Estrada in their criminal it is often that only means of discovering the persons
cases before the Sandigabayan. However, the request was who may be reasonably charged with a crime, to
denied. enable the fiscal to prepare his complain or
information. It is not a trial of the case on the merits
The issue is whether or not respondent committed grave abuse and has no purpose except that of determining
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in whether a crime has been committed and whether
issuing the subject Resolutions retaining two PAO lawyers to there is probable cause to believe that the accused is
act as counsels de oficio for the accused who are not indigent guilty therefor, and it does not place the person against
persons. whom it is taken in jeopardy.

In defense, respondent Special Division of the


Sandiganbayan, represented by the Office of the Special
103. WEBB VS DE LEON (247 SCRA 652)
Prosecutor, stated that it did not commit grave abuse of
discretion since it did not act in an arbitrary, capricious and
whimsical manner in issuing the subject Resolutions. FACTS:

It explained that it was facing a crisis when respondent On June 19, 1994, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI)
issued the subject Resolutions. At that time, the accused, former filed with the Department of Justice a letter-complaint
President Joseph Estrada, relieved the services of his counsels charging petitioners Hubert Webb, Michael Gatchalian,
on nationwide television. Subsequently, the counsels of record Antonio J. Lejano and six other personswith the crime of Rape
of co-accused Jose Estrada withdrew, and both accused were with Homicide for the rape and killing on June 30, 1991 of
adamant against hiring the services of new counsels because Carmela N. Vizconde,her mother Estrellita Nicolas-Vizconde
they allegedly did not believe in and trust the Sandiganbayan. and her sister Anne Marie Jennifer in their home at Number 80
The Sandiganbayan had the duty to decide the cases, but could W.Vinzons St., BF Homes, Parañaque, Metro Manila.
not proceed with the trial since the accused were not assisted
by counsel.
ISSUE:

The Court holds that respondent did not gravely abuse its
Whether or not respondent Judges de Leon and Tolentino
discretion in issuing the subject Resolutions as the issuance is
gravely abused their discretion whenthey failed to conduct a
not characterized by caprice or arbitrariness. At the time of
PAOs appointment, the accused did not want to avail preliminary examination before issuing warrants of arrest
themselves of any counsel; hence, respondent exercised a against them. No, the DOJ Panel did not gravely abuse its
judgment call to protect the constitutional right of the accused discretion in issuing warrants of arrest against the petitioners.
to be heard by themselves and counsel during the trial of the Section 6 of Rule 112 simply provides that “upon filing of an
cases. information, theRegional Trial Court may issue a warrant for
the arrest of the accused

101. PEOPLE VS LARRANAGA (421 SCRA RULING:


530) .”a.Section 2 of Article III of the Constitution provides
:“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
102. CINCO VS SANDIGANBAYAN (202 SCRA papers, and effects againstunreasonable searches and seizures
706) of whatever nature and for any purpose shall beinviolable, and
Petitioners' apprehension that they might be put in jeopardy of no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon
being charged with informations or crimes other than the crime probable causeto be determined personally by the judge after
imputed in the dismissed cases is baseless. There could be no examination under oath or affirmation of thecomplaint and
double jeopardy for the simple reason that they have not year the witnesses he may produce and particularly describing the
pleaded to the offense (see Gaspar v. Sandiganbayan, G. R. No. place to besearched and the persons or things to be seized.
68086, September 24, 1986, 144 SCRA 415, 420). Beside, a
preliminary investigation is not a trial for which double

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


90
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

In arrest cases, there must be probable cause that a crime has the information filed not valid and of no legal force and
been committed andthat the person to be arrested committed effect, ordering respondent Judge to dismiss the said
it. case, and declaring the obligation of petitioner as
purely civil.
Before issuing warrants of arrest, the judges merely determine
personally the probability, not the certainty of guilt, of an ISSUE: The issue raised in this ease is whether the
accuses. trial court acting on a motion to dismiss a criminal case
filed by the Provincial Fiscal upon instructions of the
104. LEVISTE VS ALAMEDA Secretary of Justice to whom the case was elevated for
review, may refuse to grant the motion and insist on
the arraignment and trial on the merits.

105. CRESPO VS MOGUL RULING:

It is a cardinal principle that a criminal actions either


FACTS:
commenced by complaint or by information shall be
prosecuted under the direction and control of the
On April 18, 1977 Assistant Fiscal Proceso K. de Gala
fiscal. The institution of a criminal action depends
with the approval of the Provincial Fiscal filed an
upon the sound discretion of the fiscal. He may or may
information for estafa against Mario Fl. Crespo in the
not file the complaint or information, follow or not
Circuit Criminal Court of Lucena City . When the case
follow that presented by the offended party, according
was set for arraigment the accused filed a motion to
to whether the evidence in his opinion, is sufficient or
defer arraignment on the ground that there was a
not to establish the guilt of the accused beyond
pending petition for review filed with the Secretary of
reasonable doubt. The reason for placing the criminal
Justice of the resolution of the Office of the Provincial
prosecution under the direction and control of the
Fiscal for the filing of the information. In an order of
fiscal is to prevent malicious or unfounded
August 1, 1977, the presiding judge, His Honor,
prosecution by private persons. It cannot be
Leodegario L. Mogul, denied the motion. A motion for
controlled by the complainant. Prosecuting officers
reconsideration of the order was denied in the order
under the power vested in them by law, not only have
of August 5, 1977 but the arraignment was deferred to
the authority but also the duty of prosecuting persons
August 18, 1977 to afford time for petitioner to elevate
who, according to the evidence received from the
the matter to the appellate court. Subsequently, the CA
complainant, are shown to be guilty of a crime
restrained Judge Mogul from proceeding with the case
committed within the jurisdiction of their office. They
until the DOJ has decided on the petition for review
have equally the legal duty not to prosecute when after
filed by the accused. Thereafter, the Undersecretary
an investigation they become convinced that the
Macaraig of the DOJ reversed the resolution of the
evidence adduced is not sufficient to establish a prima
Office of the Provincial Fiscal and directed the fiscal to
facie case. However, the action of the fiscal or
move for immediate dismissal of the information filed
prosecutor is not without any limitation or control.
against the accused. A motion to dismiss for
The same is subject to the approval of the provincial or
insufficiency of evidence was filed by the Provincial
city fiscal or the chief state prosecutor as the case
Fiscal dated April 10, 1978 with the trial court,
maybe and it maybe elevated for review to the
attaching thereto a copy of the letter of
Secretary of Justice who has the power to affirm,
Undersecretary Macaraig, Jr. In an order of August 2,
modify or reverse the action or opinion of the fiscal.
1978 the private prosecutor was given time to file an
Consequently the Secretary of Justice may direct that
opposition thereto. The Judge then denied the motion
a motion to dismiss the rase be filed in Court or
and set the arraignment. Hence this petition for review
otherwise, that an information be filed in Court. The
of said decision was filed by accused whereby
filing of a complaint or information in Court initiates a
petitioner prays that said decision be reversed and set
criminal action. The Court thereby acquires
aside, respondent judge be perpetually enjoined from
jurisdiction over the case, which is the authority to
enforcing his threat to proceed with the arraignment
hear and determine the case. When after the filing of
and trial of petitioner in said criminal case, declaring

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


91
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

the complaint or information a warrant for the arrest “uncle” of the victim even if the prosecution is able to prove the
of the accused is issued by the trial court and the same during trial.
accused either voluntarily submited himself to the
Court or was duly arrested, the Court thereby acquired 107. PEOPLE VS CARLOS GARCIA  NOT
jurisdiction over the person of the accused. The rule FOUND
therefore in this jurisdiction is that once a complaint
or information is filed in Court any disposition of the
VIII. RULE 119 (TRIAL)
case as its dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of
the accused rests in the sound discretion of the Court. 108. PEOPLE VS OBESO (kidnapping 
Although the fiscal retains the direction and control of Judge D’s former client) C/O AUGUSTO
the prosecution of criminal cases even while the case 109. JACOB VS SANDIGANBAYAN (635 SCRA
is already in Court he cannot impose his opinion on the 94) C/O AUGUSTO
trial court. The Court is the best and sole judge on what 110. PARADA VS VENERACION (269 SCRA
to do with the case before it. The determination of the 371) C/O AUGUSTO
case is within its exclusive jurisdiction and 111. PEOPLE VS GO (677 SCRA 213) C/O
competence. A motion to dismiss the case filed by the AUGUSTO
fiscal should be addressed to the Court who has the
option to grant or deny the same. It does not matter if
this is done before or after the arraignment of the 112. MANGUERRA VS RESOS (8/28/2008)
accused or that the motion was filed after a
reinvestigation or upon instructions of the Secretary FACTS:
of Justice who reviewed the records of the
investigation. Respondents here were charged of Estafa through
falsification of public documents for falsifying of a deed of real
estate mortgage allegedly committed by respondents where
they made it appear that Concepcion, the owner of the
106. PEOPLE VS VILLARAMA (220 SCR 208)
mortgaged property known as the Gorordo property, affixed
her signature to the document
FACTS:
Concepcion was unexpectedly confined at the Makati
Appellant Villarama was charged with rape of a 4 year old child.
Medical Center due to upper gastro-intestinal bleeding; and
The informationm states that the accused is the uncle of the
was advised to stay in Manila for further treatment
victim. A circumstance of rape is provided in par.1, Art. 335 as
amended by RA 3659, when the victim is under 18 years of age On August 16, 2000, the counsel of Concepcion filed a
and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian,
motion to take the latter’s deposition. He explained the need to
relative by consaguinity or affinity within the 3rd civil degree,
perpetuate Concepcion’s testimony due to her weak physical
or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim.
condition and old age, which limited her freedom of mobility.
Paragraph 4 of the same law further provides, when the victim
is a religious or a child below 7 years old. The RTC rendered a
ISSUE:
decision, finding accuse-appellant guilty and imposed the death
sentence on him. Whether or not Concepcion, as a prosecution witness,
be allowed to take deposition (due to her weak physical
ISSUE: WON it is enough for the information to merely allege condition and old age) outside the court where the case is
that appellant is the uncle of the victim? pending.

RULING: HELD:

No. Jurisprudence dictates that if the offender is a relative…, the No.


information must allege that he is “a relative by consaguinity or
affinity [as the case may be] within the 3rd civil degree. It is not Section 15. Examination of witness for the
enough for the information to merely allege that appellant is the prosecution. – When it satisfactorily appears that a witness for

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


92
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

the prosecution is too sick or infirm to appear at the trial as Unfortunately, because of Albert’s motion for
directed by the court, OR has to leave the Philippines with reconsideration against the discharge of Ramon, he was
no definite date of returning, he may forthwith be reinstated as co-accused of Albert for qualified theft.
conditionally examined before the court where the case is
pending. Such examination, in the presence of the accused, or ISSUE:
in his absence after reasonable notice to attend the examination
Whether or not the discharge of Ramon as a state
has been served on him, shall be conducted in the same manner
witness amounted to his acquittal and that his reinstatement as
as an examination at the trial. Failure or refusal of the accused
a co-accused of Albert constitutes Double Jeopardy.
to attend the examination after notice shall be considered a
waiver. The statement taken may be admitted in behalf of or HELD:
against the accused.
Yes.
Undoubtedly, the procedure set forth in Rule 119
applies to the case at bar. It is thus required that the conditional The general rule is that the discharge of an accused in
examination be made before the court where the case is order that he may turn state witness, is expressly left to the
pending. It is also necessary that the accused be notified, so discretion of the trial court. 7 The effect of the discharge of a
that he can attend the examination, subject to his right to defendant is specified in Section 10 of Rule 119 in the following
waive the same after reasonable notice. As to the manner of manner:
examination, the Rules mandate that it be conducted in the
same manner as an examination during trial, that is, through Sec. 10. Discharge of Accused Operates as Acquittal. — The
question and answer. order indicated in the preceding section, shall amount to an
acquittal of the accused discharged and shall be a bar to future
prosecution for the same offense, unless the accused fails or
113. BOGO-MEDELLIN MILING CO., INC. vs. refuses to testify against his co-accused in accordance with his
SON (209 SCRA 329)  BY JIGO sworn statement constituting the basis for his discharge.

FACTS: On the claim of the private prosecutor that the discharge of


Ramon on the basis of the questioned order operated as an
Ramon was charged with qualified theft. At the same acquittal and therefore would constitute double jeopardy if he
time several persons including Albert were charged in separate is reinstated as accused, it needs only to state that under
information for simple theft. The acts involved in both Section 10 of Rule 119, the discharge which amounts to an
informations related to the theft of the same item, Wela Babes acquittal and therefore a bar to a future prosecution for the
belly button. same offense, applies only if and after the discharged
accused shall have actually testified for the state or his
Months later, Albert was dropped from the
failure to testify is attributable to the prosecution. Thus,
information for simple theft and instead was charged as co-
where Ramon has not yet testified, the principle of double does
accused of Ramon.
not yet apply. For even if he is not reinstated as accused and he
After arraignment of the two (2) accused, but before the fails or refuses, for some reason, to testify against his co-
prosecution could commence presenting its evidence, accused, then his discharge does not operate as an acquittal and
petitioner Wela Babes Inc., filed a manifestation informing the therefore not a bar to future prosecution o f the same offense.
trial court of petitioner Ramon's desire and willingness to act
In the case at bar, there is no evidence of record to
as state witness and to testify against his co-accused, Albert
show that Ramon failed or refused to testify against his co-
who, Ramon claimed, was the most guilty. Then, the court
accused, i.e., that he reneged on his covenant with the
granted the discharge of Ramon as a state witness.
prosecution. All the record shows is that petitioner Ramon
Ramon failed to appear twice before the trial court for failed to attend two (2) scheduled hearings, which does not
the initial hearing of the case. necessarily show that he had violated his undertaking to
testify against his co-accused "in accordance with his
sworn statement constituting the basis for his discharge."

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


93
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

There is thus on record no sufficient basis to withhold the Court of Appeals, the trial court's decision was
the benefits of Section 10 of Rule 119 from Ramon. We conclude modified finding the accused guilty of simple slander.
that, petitioner Ramon having been acquitted of the charge of
Bernardino passed away while this petition was instituted
qualified theft, could not be subsequently reinstated as a co-
accused in the same information without a prohibited second in the Supreme Court. Francisco, then argues that since the
jeopardy arising under the circumstances, absent satisfactory CA had found that the offense committed was the lesser
proof that he had refused or failed to testify against his co-
offense of simple slander, which under Art. 90 of the RPC,
accused.
prescribes in two months, the CA should have dismissed
the case.
114. PEOPLE VS LARRANAGA (421 SCRA
530)  DONE
Further, Francisco claims that the CA should have
115. SOBERANO VS PEOPLE (472 SCRA 125)
acquitted him on the ground that the said crime had
 DONE
already prescribed as per evidence presented, the alleged
defamatory remarks were committed on December 26,

116. PP VS BAUTISTA (106 PHIL 39)  C/O JIGO 1965, while the information charged against him was filed
more than four months later.
117. PP VS MENDIOLA (82 PHIL 740)  C/O JIGO
The Solicitor General, however, contends that "for the
118. WEBB VS DE LEON (8/23/1995)  C/O JIGO
purpose of determining the proper prescriptive period,
119. PP VS SOBERANO (472 SCRA 125)  C/O JIGO
what should be considered is the nature of the offense
charged in the information which is grave oral defamation,
not the crime committed by the accused, as said crime was
120. FRANCISCO VS CA (5/30/1983)
found by the Court to constitute only simple slander". Since
the prescription for grave oral defamation is six months,
FACTS: the crime has not yet prescribed when it the information
On February 6, 1966, Dr. Patrocinio Angeles, who was then was filed. Moreover, the Solicitor General argues that the
the Director of the Morong Emergency Hospital, filed a case filing of the complaint in the Fiscal's office interrupts the
for intriguing against honor allegedly committed on period of prescription. Only 39 days had passed from the
December 26, 1965 by Dr. Emiliano and Atty. Harry time the offense was allegedly committed to the day of the
Bernardino. On May 3, 1966, the Provincial Fiscal filed an filing of the complaint.
information against Francisco and Bernardino with the CFI
of Rizal of the crime of grave oral defamation. Later, upon ISSUES: Whether or not the crime of simple slander found
order of the court, the information was amended by adding by the CA to be the offense committed by the petitioners
statements allegedly uttered by the two accused has prescribed.
constituting the crime of slander.
On Feb. 1, 1973, the trial court convicted Francisco and Whether or not the filing of a complaint in the Fiscal's office
Bernardino of the crime of grave oral defamation and interrupts the prescription of an offense.
sentenced each of them the penalty of arresto mayor and
was made to pay the complainant P10,000. Upon appeal in RULING:

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


94
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

1. Yes. An accused cannot be convicted for the lesser respondent Lawrence Wang that would reasonably invite the
attention of the police. He was merely walking from the Maria
offense necessarily included in the crime charged if at the
Orosa Apartment and was about to enter the parked BMW car
time of the filing of the information, the lesser offense has when the police operatives arrested him, frisked and searched
his person and commanded him to open the compartment of
already prescribed. To hold otherwise, according to the
the car, which was later on found to be owned by his friend,
Court, would be to sanction a circumvention of the law on David Lee. He was not committing any visible offense then.
Therefore, there can be no valid warrantless arrest in flagrante
prescription by the simple expedient of accusing the
delicto under paragraph (a) of Section 5. It is settled that
defendant of the graver offense. reliable information alone, absent any overt act indicative of a
felonious enterprise in the presence and within the view of the
2. Yes. Prescription is interrupted with the filing of the case
arresting officers, is not sufficient to constitute probable cause
even if the court is without jurisdiction, even if it be merely for
that would justify an in flagrante delicto arrest.
purposes of preliminary examination or investigation. Thus,
the filing of the complaint in the Fiscal's office interrupts the Neither may the warrantless arrest be justified under
period of prescription. paragraph (b) of Section 5. What is clearly established from the
121. PP VS LAGUIO testimonies of the arresting officers is that Wang was arrested
mainly on the information that he was the employer of
FACTS: Redentor Teck and Joseph Junio who were previously arrested
and charged for illegal transport of shabu. Teck and Junio did
Petitioner, People of the Philippines filed this petition for not even categorically identify Wang to be their source of
review to nullify and set aside the resolution of RTC in criminal the shabu they were caught with in flagrante delicto. Upon the
case, granting private respondent, Lawrence Wang Demurrer duos declaration that there will be a delivery of shabu on the
to Evidence and aquitting him of 3 charges filed against him. early morning of the following day, May 17, which is only a few
hours thereafter, and that Wang may be found in Maria Orosa
The trial court resolved the case on the basis of its findings Apartment along Maria Orosa Street, the arresting officers
that the arrest preceded the search, and finding no basis to conducted surveillance operation in front of said apartment,
rule in favor of a lawful arrest, it ruled that the incidental search hoping to find a person which will match the description of one
is likewise unlawful. Any and all pieces of evidence acquired as Lawrence Wang, the employer of Teck and Junio. These
a consequence thereof are inadmissible in evidence. Thus, the circumstances do not sufficiently establish the existence of
trial court dismissed the case for lack of evidence. probable cause based on personal knowledge as required in
paragraph (b) of Section 5.
Contrary to its position at the trial court, the People, however,
now posits that inasmuch as it has been shown in the present And doubtless, the warrantless arrest does not fall under
case that the seizure without warrant of the regulated drugs paragraph (c) of Section 5.
and unlicensed firearms in the accused possession had been
validly made upon probable cause and under exigent
circumstances, then the warrantless arrest of the accused must The inevitable conclusion, as correctly made by the trial court,
necessarily have to be regarded as having been made on the is that the warrantless arrest was illegal. Ipso jure, the
occasion of the commission of the crime in flagrante delicto, and warrantless search incidental to the illegal arrest is likewise
therefore constitutionally and statutorily permissible and unlawful.
lawful. In effect, the People now contends that the warrantless
search preceded the warrantless arrest. Since the case falls
under an exception to the general rule requiring search warrant
prior to a valid search and seizure, the police officers were 122. PP VS UY (9/30/2005)  C/O GIME
justified in requiring the private respondent to open his BMW
cars trunk to see if he was carrying illegal drugs.
ISSUE: whether there was lawful arrest, search and seizure by
123. DAYAP VS SENDIONG (G.R. 177960 1/29/2009)
the police operatives in this case despite the absence of a
warrant of arrest and/or a search warrant. FACTS:
Dayap was charged with reckless imprudence
RULING: resulting to homicide, less serious physical injuries and damage
to property. It was alleged that Dayap was the driver of a cargo
NO. The facts and circumstances surrounding the present case truck which figured in an accident with a Colt Galant driven by
did not manifest any suspicious behavior on the part of private Lou Gene Sendiong causing instant death to the latter and less

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


95
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

serious physical injuries to the latter’s passenger. The MTC on double jeopardy. To this general rule, however, the Court has
granted Dayap Demurrer to Evidence saying that prosecution previously made some exceptions.30
failed to establish that Dayap was really the one driving the
cargo truck. The MTC further stated that prosecution also People v. Tan31 eruditely instructs that double jeopardy will not
wasn’t able to prove the death and injuries of the victim as there attach when the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion
were not death certificate and medical certificates submitted as
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, such as where the
evidence. The MTC gave credence to the evidence of the Dayap,
showing that it was the victim’s car which swerved into the prosecution was denied the opportunity to present its case or
cargo truck’s lane thereby being the proximate cause of the where the trial was a sham.
accident. The MTC relied on the accident sketch contained in
the police blotter to support this conclusion. FACTS:
Aggrieved, Sendiong filed a petition for certiorari
under 65 with the RTC. The RTC affirmed the acquittal of Dayap Complainant is the accused in the Criminal Case No. 137860-
but ordered the case remanded to the MTC for the hearing of PSG, entitled People of the Philippines v. Esther Magleo y
the civil aspect. Pampolina, for Estafa presided by Judge Nicanor Manalo, Jr.
Sendiong filed a petition for review (42) with the CA. (Judge Manalo)who granted her demurrer to evidence and
the CA concluded that it was the RTC which had jurisdiction and
acquitted her of the charge of estafa.
not the MTC. The CA explained that according to Cuyos v Garcia,
jurisdiction over damage to property cases should be
determined by the imposable fine and not the penalty for the Thereafter, the prosecutor filed a motion to inhibit Judge
physical injuries and following BP 129, MTC only has Manalo from the case. THE CASE was later re-raffled to Branch
jurisdiction over those felonies with imposable fine not 166, RTC, Pasig City, presided over by respondent judge
exceeding 10,000. Since in this case, no proof of total damage Quinagoran.
was given and Sendiong claims 1.5M in civil damages, the same
should have been brought before the RTC. Complainant’s averments:

ISSUE: Whether or not remand to the MTC of the case for the  instead of motu proprio dismissing the case on ground
determination of civil liability was proper of double jeopardy, respondent judge overturned the
order of acquittal and set the case for reception of
RULING:
. Complainant filed a motion for reconsideration, but it
The acquittal of an accused does not carry
was denied by respondent judge. HENCE, violating
with it the extinction of civil liability when (1) acquittal was
based on reasonable doubt (2) court determines that there is complainant’s right against double jeopardy. (FOCUS
only a civil liability (3) the civil liability of the accused does not ON THIS ISSUE, others are merely incidental to
arise or is not based on the crime for which he was acquitted. RULE 119)
On the other hand, acquittal of an accused carries the extinction  she did not receive a notice of hearing, Despite such
of civil liability when (1) there is a finding on the final judgment omission, respondent judge still issued a warrant of
in the criminal action that the act or omission from which the arrest
civil liability may arise did not exist or (2) the accused did not  the amount of bail recommended was erased to bar
commit the acts or omission imputed to him. In this case, the her from posting the bond for her temporary liberty.
acquittal by the MTC was based on findings that the act or Respondent Judge defenses:
omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist
and that petitioner did not commit the acts or omission  when the accused filed the demurrer to evidence, the
imputed to him; hence, petitioner’s civil liability has been
prosecution has not rested its case yet. Thus, the
extinguished by his acquittal. Thus, because there was no civil
liability to hear, the case should not have been remanded to the granting of the demurrer to evidence is not proper
MTC. considering that it was filed prematurely. And that the
filing of the demurrer to evidence before the
prosecution could rest its case and the subsequent
124. MAGLEO V QUINAGURAN (11/12/2014) granting thereof effectively denied the prosecution’s
right to due process.
PRINCIPLE: An order granting an accused’s demurrer to ISSUE:
evidence is a resolution of the caseon the merits, and it amounts
to an acquittal. Generally, any further prosecution of the accused
after an acquittal would violate the constitutional proscription

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


96
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

whether the respondents committed transgressions in the preponderance of evidence is required; (b) where the court
performance of their duties warranting the imposition of declared that the liability of the accused is only civil; (c) where
disciplinary penalties. the civil liability of the accused does not arise from or is not
based upon the crime of which the accused was
RULING: acquitted. Moreover, the civil action based on the delict is
extinguished if there is a finding in the final judgment in the
NO. criminal action that the act or omission from which the civil
liability may arise did not exist or where the accused did not
commit the acts or omission imputed to him.
This Court is convinced that respondent judge acted in
accordance with the law and jurisprudence. It was the February
2, 2011 Omnibus Order26 which elucidated the clear legal basis
why respondent judge continued the criminal casedespite the FACTS:
earlier order granting the demurrer to evidence. Generally, if
the trial court finds that the prosecution evidence is not petitioner Anamer Salazar purchased 300 cavans of rice from
sufficient and grants the accused's Demurrer to Evidence, the J.Y. Brothers Marketing Corporation, through Mr. Jerson Yao. As
ruling is an adjudication on the merits of the casewhich is payment for these cavans of rice, the petitioner gave the private
tantamount to an acquittal and may no longer be appealed.27 complainant Check No. 067481 drawn against the Prudential
Bank.
The current scenario, however, is an exception to the general
rule. The demurrer to evidence was premature because it was Upon presentment, the check was dishonored because it was
filed before the prosecution rested its case. The RTC had not yet
drawn under a closed account (Account Closed). The petitioner
ruled on the admissibility of the formal offer of evidence of the
prosecution when complainant filed her demurrer to was informed of such dishonor. She replaced the Prudential
evidence.28 Hence, respondent judge had legal basis to overturn Bank check with Check No. 365704 drawn against the Solid
the order granting the demurrer to evidence as there was no Bank, Legazpi Branch, which, however, was returned with the
proper acquittal. The complainant elevated the matter to the CA word DAUD (Drawn Against Uncollected Deposit).
via a petition for certioraribut it sustained her ruling.29The CA
decision reads: After the prosecution rested its case, the petitioner filed a
Demurrer to Evidence with Leave of Court[5] alleging that she
Indubitably, an order granting an accused’s demurrer to could not be guilty of the crime as charged for the following
evidence is a resolution of the caseon the merits, and it amounts reasons: (a) she was merely an indorser of the check issued by
to an acquittal. Generally, any further prosecution of the
Nena Timario, and Article 315, paragraph 2(d) on estafa
accused after an acquittal would violate the constitutional
proscription on double jeopardy. To this general rule, however, penalizes only the issuer of the check and not the indorser
the Court has previously made some exceptions.30 thereof; (b) there is no sufficient evidence to prove that the
petitioner conspired with the issuer of the check, Nena Jaucian
People v. Tan31 eruditely instructs that double jeopardy will not Timario, in order to defraud the private complainant; (c) after
attach when the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion the first check was dishonored, the petitioner replaced it with a
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, such as where the second one. The first transaction had therefore been
prosecution was denied the opportunity to present its case or effectively novated by the issuance of the second
where the trial was a sham. In addition, in People v. Bocar,32 this check. Unfortunately, her personal check was dishonored not
Court rule that there is no double jeopardy when the
for insufficiency of funds, but for DAUD, which in banking
prosecution was not allowed to complete its presentation of
evidence by the trial court. parlance means drawn against uncollected deposit. According
to the petitioner, this means that the account had sufficient
funds but was still restricted because the deposit, usually a
check, had not yet been cleared.
125. PP VS SALAZAR (411 SCRA 598)
The court acquitted petitioner on the absence of
conspiracy between him and the endorser. As a mere indorser
PRINCIPLE: The acquittal of the accused does not prevent of the check, the petitioners breach of the warranty that the
a judgment against him on the civil aspect of the case where (a)
check was a good one is not synonymous with the fraudulent
the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


97
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

act of falsely pretending to possess credit under Article SEC. 2. Contents of the judgment. If the judgment is of
315(2)(d). conviction, it shall state (1) the legal qualification of the offense
constituted by the acts committed by the accused and the
Within the reglementary period therefor, the aggravating or mitigating circumstances which attended its
petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on the civil aspect commission; (2) the participation of the accused in the offense,
whether as principal, accomplice, or accessory after the fact; (3)
of the decision with a plea that he be allowed to present
the penalty imposed upon the accused; and (4) the civil liability
evidence pursuant to Rule 33 of the Rules of Court. But the court or damages caused by his wrongful act or omission to be
issued an order denying the motion. recovered from the accused by the offended party, if there is any,
unless the enforcement of the civil liability by a separate civil
ISSUES: action has been reserved or waived.

Whether or not petitioner’s motion is meritorious. In case the judgment is of acquittal, it shall state whether
the evidence of the prosecution absolutely failed to prove
RULING: the guilt of the accused or merely failed to prove his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt. In either case, the judgment
The last paragraph of Section 2 rule 111 provides that the shall determine if the act or omission from which the civil
extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the liability might arise did not exist.[10]
extinction of the civil action. Moreover, the civil action based on
delict shall be deemed extinguished if there is a finding in a final
The acquittal of the accused does not prevent a judgment
judgment in the criminal action that the act or omission from
against him on the civil aspect of the case where (a) the
which the civil liability may arise did not exist.[7]
acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only preponderance
The criminal action has a dual purpose, namely, the of evidence is required; (b) where the court declared that the
punishment of the offender and indemnity to the offended liability of the accused is only civil; (c) where the civil liability
party. The dominant and primordial objective of the criminal of the accused does not arise from or is not based upon the
action is the punishment of the offender. The civil action is crime of which the accused was acquitted. Moreover, the civil
merely incidental to and consequent to the conviction of the action based on the delict is extinguished if there is a finding in
accused. The reason for this is that criminal actions are the final judgment in the criminal action that the act or omission
primarily intended to vindicate an outrage against the from which the civil liability may arise did not exist or where
sovereignty of the state and to impose the appropriate penalty the accused did not commit the acts or omission imputed to
for the vindication of the disturbance to the social order caused him.
by the offender. On the other hand, the action between the
When the accused files a demurrer to evidence, the
private complainant and the accused is intended solely to
accused has not yet adduced evidence both on the criminal and
indemnify the former.[8]
civil aspects of the case. The only evidence on record is the
Unless the offended party waives the civil action or evidence for the prosecution. What the trial court should do is
reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil to issue an order or partial judgment granting the demurrer to
action prior to the criminal action, there are two actions evidence and acquitting the accused; and set the case for
involved in a criminal case. The first is the criminal action for continuation of trial for the petitioner to adduce evidence on
the punishment of the offender. The parties are the People of the civil aspect of the case
the Philippines as the plaintiff and the accused. In a criminal
action, the private complainant is merely a witness for the State
on the criminal aspect of the action. The second is the civil 126. PP VS ALFEREZ (G.R. 182301 1/31/2011)
action arising from the delict. The private complainant is the
plaintiff and the accused is the defendant. There is a merger of PRINCIPLE: The extinction of the penal action does not carry
the trial of the two cases to avoid multiplicity of suits. with it the extinction of the civil action where (a) the acquittal
is based on reasonable doubt as only preponderance of
The quantum of evidence on the criminal aspect of the
evidence is required; (b) the court declares that the liability of
case is proof beyond reasonable doubt, while in the civil aspect
of the action, the quantum of evidence is preponderance of the accused is only civil; and (c) the civil liability of the accused
evidence.[9] Under Section 3, Rule 1 of the 1997 Rules of does not arise from or is not based upon the crime of which the
Criminal Procedure, the said rules shall govern the procedure accused was acquitted.
to be observed in action, civil or criminal.
When petitioner filed a demurrer to evidence without leave of
court, the whole case was submitted for judgment on the basis

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


98
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

of the evidence presented by the prosecution as the accused is receipt; they must be properly authenticated to serve
deemed to have waived the right to present evidence. as proof of receipt of the letter, claimed to be a notice
of dishonor.

FACTS: 2. YES.

Petitioner Jaime Alferez purchased construction materials from Nonetheless, petitioners acquittal for failure of the
Cebu ABC Sales Commercial. As payment for the goods, he
issued three (3) checks for the total amount of P830,998.40. prosecution to prove all elements of the offense
However, the checks were dishonored for having been drawn beyond reasonable doubt does not include the
against a closed account. Petitioner was thus charged with
extinguishment of his civil liability for the dishonored
three (3) counts of violation of Batas
Pambansa Bilang (B.P. Blg.) 22 before the Municipal Trial Court checks.[29] In case of acquittal, the accused may still be
in Cities (MTCC), Cebu City. adjudged civilly liable. The extinction of the penal
Instead of presenting evidence, petitioner filed a Demurrer action does not carry with it the extinction of the civil
to Evidence approximately ten (10) months after the action where (a) the acquittal is based on reasonable
prosecution rested its case. Petitioner averred that the
prosecution failed to show that he received the notice of doubt as only preponderance of evidence is required;
dishonor or demand letter. (b) the court declares that the liability of the accused

The trial convicted him of the charged. MR-denied; is only civil; and (c) the civil liability of the accused
appealed the case to RTC but only modified the penalty of does not arise from or is not based upon the crime of
imprisonment.
which the accused was acquitted.[30] In a number of
Elevated the matter to the CA via a petition for review similar cases, we have held that an acquittal based on
under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court but sustained the crime as
charged. As to petitioners contention that he was denied his reasonable doubt does not preclude the award of civil
right to present evidence after the denial of his demurrer to damages.[31]
evidence, the CA held that there was no such denial since it was
merely the consequence of the filing of demurrer without leave
of court. In view of the foregoing, we sustain the findings of the
trial court, as affirmed by the CA, as to petitioners civil
ISSUE:
liability.
1. Whether or not accused be held liable under BP 22
2. Whether the filing of the Demurrer of (sic) Evidence
without leave and denied by the trial court is a waiver Finally, in answer to petitioners insistence that he
of the right of the petitioner (the accused before the
should have been allowed by the trial court to present
trial court) to present his evidence in support and to
rebut the evidence of the respondent particularly with his evidence on the civil aspect of the case, suffice it to
respect to the civil aspect of the case.
state that when petitioner filed a demurrer to evidence
RULING:
without leave of court, the whole case was submitted
1. NO. the prosecution merely presented a copy of the
demand letter, together with the registry receipt and for judgment on the basis of the evidence presented by
the return card, allegedly sent to petitioner, there was the prosecution as the accused is deemed to have
no attempt to authenticate or identify the signature on
the registry return card.[18] Receipts for registered waived the right to present evidence. At that juncture,
letters and return receipts do not by themselves prove

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


99
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

the court is called upon to decide the case including its Petitioner appealed the civil aspect[7] of the case to the
civil aspect.[ Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, contending that the
dismissal of the criminal case should not include its civil aspect.

127. HUN HYUNG PARKVS EUNG WON CHOI (GR


165496 2/12/2007) DISTINCTION OF DEMURRER IN By Decision of September 11, 2003, Branch 60 of the
CRIMINAL AND CIVIL) RTC held that while the evidence presented was insufficient to
prove respondents criminal liability, it did not altogether
PRINCIPLE: Either the offended party or the accused may, extinguish his civil liability. It accordingly granted the appeal of
however, appeal the civil aspect of the judgment despite the
petitioner and ordered respondent to pay him the amount
acquittal of the accused.
of P1,875,000 with legal interest.[
For, in case of acquittal, the accused may still be adjudged civilly
liable. The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it
the extinction of the civil action where (a) the acquittal is based ISSUE:
on reasonable doubt as only preponderance of evidence is
Whether or not acquittal extinguishes the civil liability of the
required; (b) the court declares that the liability of the accused
is only civil; and (c) the civil liability of the accused does not accused
arise from or is not based upon the crime of which the accused
was acquitted
RULING:
NO. As a rule, a judgment of acquittal is immediately

FACTS: final and executory and the prosecution cannot appeal the
acquittal because of the constitutional prohibition against
Respondent, Eung Won Choi, was charged for double jeopardy.
violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, otherwise known as the
Bouncing Checks Law, for issuing on June 28, 1999 Philippine
National Bank Check No. 0077133 postdated August 28, Either the offended party or the accused may,

1999 in the amount of P1,875,000 which was dishonored for however, appeal the civil aspect of the judgment despite the

having been drawn against insufficient funds. acquittal of the accused. The public prosecutor has generally no

After the prosecution rested its case, respondent filed interest in appealing the civil aspect of a decision acquitting the

a Motion for Leave of Court to File Demurrer to Evidence to accused. The acquittal ends his work. The case is terminated as

which he attached his Demurrer, asserting that the prosecution far as he is concerned. The real parties in interest in the civil

failed to prove that he received the notice of dishonor, hence, aspect of a decision are the offended party and the

the presumption of the element of knowledge of insufficiency accused.[

of funds did not arise.


MeTC granted the Demurrer to Evidence. If the filing of a separate civil action has not been
reserved or priorly instituted or the enforcement of civil
liability is not waived, the trial court should, in case of

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


100
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

conviction, state the civil liability or damages caused by the preponderance of evidence. For if the court grants the
wrongful act or omission to be recovered from the accused by demurrer, proceedings on the civil aspect of the case generally
the offended party, if there is any.[31] proceeds. The only recognized instance when an acquittal on
demurrer carries with it the dismissal of the civil aspect is when
For, in case of acquittal, the accused may still be there is a finding that the act or omission from which the civil
adjudged civilly liable. The extinction of the penal action does liability may arise did not exist. Absent such determination,
not carry with it the extinction of the civil action where (a) the trial as to the civil aspect of the case must perforce
acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only preponderance continue. Thus this Court, in Salazar v. People,[35] held:
of evidence is required; (b) the court declares that the liability
If demurrer is granted and the
of the accused is only civil; and (c) the civil liability of the accused is acquitted by the court, the accused
accused does not arise from or is not based upon the crime of has the right to adduce evidence on the civil
aspect of the case unless the court also
which the accused was acquitted.[32] declares that the act or omission from which
the civil liability may arise did not exist.[36]

The civil action based on delict may, however, be


deemed extinguished if there is a finding on the final judgment
In the instant case, the MeTC granted the demurrer
in the criminal action that the act or omission from which the
and dismissed the case without any finding that the act or
civil liability may arise did not exist.[33]
omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist.

In case of a demurrer to evidence filed with leave of


Respondent did not assail the RTC order of remand. He
court, the accused may adduce countervailing evidence if the
thereby recognized that there is basis for a remand.
court denies the demurrer.[34] Such denial bears no distinction
as to the two aspects of the case because there is a disparity of
Indicatively, respondent stands by his defense that he
evidentiary value between the quanta of evidence in such
merely borrowed P1,500,000 with the remainder representing
aspects of the case. In other words, a court may not deny the
the interest, and that he already made a partial payment
demurrer as to the criminal aspect and at the same time grant
of P1,590,000. Petitioner counters, however, that the payments
the demurrer as to the civil aspect, for if the evidence so far
made by respondent pertained to other transactions.[37] Given
presented is not insufficient to prove the crime beyond
these conflicting claims which are factual, a remand of the case
reasonable doubt, then the same evidence is likewise not
would afford the fullest opportunity for the parties to ventilate,
insufficient to establish civil liability by mere preponderance of
and for the trial court to resolve the same.
evidence.

Petitioner finally posits that respondent waived his


On the other hand, if the evidence so far presented is
right to present evidence on the civil aspect of the case (1) when
insufficient as proof beyond reasonable doubt, it does not
the grant of the demurrer was reversed on appeal, citing
follow that the same evidence is insufficient to establish a
Section 1 of Rule 33,[38] and (2) when respondent orally

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


101
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

As a consequence the promulgation set


opposed petitioners motion for reconsideration pleading that tomorrow, April 2, is canceled. Set the reception of the
proceedings with respect to the civil aspect of the case testimony of the eye witness and the doctor on May 1,
2003 at 2:00 [p.]m. to enable the prosecution to avail
continue. [of] the last chance granted by this Court. Issue the
corresponding subpoena to Imelda Pedrosa and Dr.
Romeo T. Salen directing them to appear on the
aforesaid date and time, to be served by the Branch
128. CABARLES VS MACEDA (REOPINING OF TRIAL) Sheriff who is required to make a prompt return
thereof.

ISSUE:
DOCTRINE: Did Judge Maceda act with grave abuse of discretion in issuing
motu proprio the April 1, 2003 Order reopening the case, before
The following requirements for reopening a case: (1) the judgment was rendered, to receive the testimonies of two
reopening must be before the finality of a judgment of prosecution witnesses after both parties had rested their case?
conviction; (2) the order is issued by the judge on his own
initiative or upon motion; (3) the order is issued only after a RULING:
hearing is conducted; (4) the order intends to prevent a
miscarriage of justice; and (5) the presentation of additional
Yes. Section 24, Rule 119 and existing jurisprudence stress the
and/or further evidence should be terminated within thirty
following requirements for reopening a case: (1) the reopening
days from the issuance of the order.
must be before the finality of a judgment of conviction; (2) the
order is issued by the judge on his own initiative or upon
FACTS: motion; (3) the order is issued only after a hearing is conducted;
On June 18, 1999, Cabarles was charged with murder. A day (4) the order intends to prevent a miscarriage of justice; and (5)
before the scheduled promulgation of judgment on April 2, the presentation of additional and/or further evidence should
2003, Judge Maceda motu proprio issued the questioned order be terminated within thirty days from the issuance of the order.
reopening the case. In it, he observed that the prosecution may
not have been given its day in court resulting in a miscarriage Generally, after the parties have produced their respective
of justice. He explained that because there was a mix-up in the direct proofs, they are allowed to offer rebutting evidence only.
dates specified in the subpoena and the hearing dates of when However, the court, for good reasons, in the furtherance of
the case was actually heard, the prosecution was unable to justice, may allow new evidence upon their original case, and
present its evidence on the first four of the five hearing dates: its ruling will not be disturbed in the appellate court where no
April 18, May 4, 11 and 18, 2001 assigned to it. Judge Maceda abuse of discretion appears. A motion to reopen may thus
found that there was no hearing conducted on April 18, 2001. properly be presented only after either or both parties had
Thereafter, the subpoena issued to Pedrosa required her to formally offered and closed their evidence, but before judgment
appear on April 11, 2001, which was not a date assigned for the is rendered, and even after promulgation but before finality of
prosecution but May 11, 2001. Also, Judge Maceda noted that judgment and the only controlling guideline governing a
another subpoena was issued to Pedrosa and Dr. Salen motion to reopen is the paramount interest of justice. This
requiring them to appear on May 11 and June 20, 2001. But, the remedy of reopening a case was meant to prevent a miscarriage
May 11, 2001 hearing was reset to May 25, 2001 because the of justice.
judge was indisposed, and insofar as the June 20, 2001 setting
was concerned, it was not one of the days set by the court for However, while Judge Maceda is allowed to reopen the case
the prosecution. Judge Maceda further observed that the May before judgment is rendered, Section 24 requires that a hearing
18, 2001 hearing was never scheduled and May 25, 2001 was must first be conducted. Judge Maceda issued the April 1, 2003
likewise not a hearing date set by the court. According to Judge Order without notice and hearing and without giving the
Maceda, since the prosecution was not able to present its prosecution and accused an opportunity to manifest their
evidence on the first four hearing dates and there was either no position on the matter. This failure, to our mind, constitutes
return on the subpoenas subsequently issued or there was no grave abuse of discretion and goes against the due process
subpoena issued at all to Pedrosa and Dr. Salen, the prosecution clause of the Constitution which requires notice and
should have been given a last chance to present the alleged opportunity to be heard. The issuance of the said order, without
eyewitness and the doctor. His order in part read: the benefit of a hearing, is contrary to the express language of
Section 24, Rule 119.

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


102
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

On February 11, 2010, the CA rendered its Decision reversing


the decision of the RTC, the decretal portion of which reads:

IX. RULE 120 WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed


decision of Branch 202 of the RTC of Las Piñas City, dated
April 21, 2006, is hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE and
129. CASTILLO VS SALVADOR (7/30/2014) accused appellant PHILLIP R. SALVADOR is
ACQUITTED of the crime of Estafa.
DOCTRINE:
Petitioner now files the instant petition on the matter of the
The consequences of an acquittal on the civil liability of the civil aspect of the case.
accused as follows:
ISSUE:
First is an acquittal on the ground that the accused is not the
author of the act or omission complained of. This instance
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in acquitting the
closes the door to civil liability, for a person who has been found
accused and not retaining the award of damages to the
to be not the perpetrator of any act or omission cannot and can
petitioner.
never be held liable for such act or omission. There being no
delict, civil liability ex delicto is out of the question, and the civil
action, if any, which may be instituted must be based on RULING:
grounds other than the delict complained of. This is the
situation contemplated in Rule III of the Rules of Court. The No. To begin with, in Manantan v. CA, we discussed the
second instance is an acquittal based on reasonable doubt on consequences of an acquittal on the civil liability of the accused
the guilt of the accused. In this case, even if the guilt of the as follows:
accused has not been satisfactorily established, he is not
exempt from civil liability which may be proved by Our law recognizes two kinds of acquittal, with different effects
preponderance of evidence only. on the civil liability of the accused. First is an acquittal on the
ground that the accused is not the author of the act or omission
FACTS: complained of. This instance closes the door to civil liability, for
a person who has been found to be not the perpetrator of any
On April 21, 2006, the RTC rendered a Decision, the dispositive act or omission cannot and can never be held liable for such act
portion states: or omission. There being no delict, civil liability ex delicto is out
of the question, and the civil action, if any, which may be
instituted must be based on grounds other than the delict
WHEREFORE, accused PHILLIP SALVADOR is found GUILTY
complained of. This is the situation contemplated in Rule III of
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa under Article
the Rules of Court. The second instance is an acquittal based on
315, par. 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code and is hereby
reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused. In this case, even
sentenced to suffer the indeterminate sentence of four (4)
if the guilt of the accused has not been satisfactorily established,
years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prisyon (sic)
he is not exempt from civil liability which may be proved by
correctional (sic) maximum as minimum to twenty (20) years
preponderance of evidence only. This is the situation
of reclusion temporal maximum as maximum and to indemnify
contemplated in Article 29 of the Civil Code, where the civil
the private complainant in the amount of ONE HUNDRED
action for damages is “for the same act or omission.” x x x.
THOUSAND DOLLARS (US$100,000.00) or its equivalent in
Philippine currency.
A reading of the CA decision would show that respondent was
acquitted because the prosecution failed to prove his guilt
With respect to accused RAMON SALVADOR, he is ACQUITTED
beyond reasonable doubt. Said the CA:
for insufficiency of evidence.

The evidence for the prosecution being insufficient to prove


SO ORDERED.
beyond reasonable doubt that the crime as charged had been
committed by appellant, the general presumption, “that a
Respondent appealed his conviction to the CA. The parties filed person is innocent of the crime or wrong, stands in his favor.
their respective pleadings, after which, the case was submitted The prosecution failed to prove that all the elements of estafa
for decision. are present in this case as would overcome the presumption of
innocence in favor of appellant. For in fact, the prosecution's

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


103
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

primary witness herself could not even establish clearly complainant and accused-appellant, laconically ruled:
and precisely how appellant committed the alleged fraud. She The issue is simple. Is the private complainant credible in her
failed to convince us that she was deceived through story of how she was raped? The answer of this Court is an
misrepresentations and/or insidious actions, in venturing into undoubtful and a definite yes.
a remittance business. Quite the contrary, the obtaining
circumstance in this case indicate the weakness of her Based on said ruling, accused-appellant questioned said
submissions. decision on the ground that it failed to state the grounds
therefore.
Thus, since the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt,
respondent is not exempt from civil liability which may be ISSUE:
proved by preponderance of evidence only. In Encinas v. Whether or not the assailed decision is in accordance with what
National Bookstore, Inc., we explained the concept of the Constitution and rules require.
preponderance of evidence as follows:
RULING:
x x x Preponderance of evidence is the weight, credit, and value
of the aggregate evidence on either side and is usually
NO. The Constitution provides in part in Art. VIII, 14 that: No
considered to be synonymous with the term “greater weight of
decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing
the evidence” or “greater weight of the credible evidence.”
therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which
Preponderance of evidence is a phrase which, in the last
it is based. This requirement is reiterated and implemented by
analysis, means probability of the truth. It is evidence which is
the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure which provides in Rule
more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which
120, 2:
is offered in opposition thereto.
Sec. 2. Form and contents of judgment. - The judgment must be
written in the official language, personally and directly
However, petitioner in the case failed to prove even prepared by the judge and signed by him and shall contain
preponderance of evidence to establish that indeed, she gave or clearly and distinctly a statement of the facts proved or
turned-over to herein respondent $100,000. Hence the CA is admitted by the accused and the law upon which the judgment
correct in both acquitting the accused and not awarding to is based.
petitioner the civil aspect claimed.
If it is of conviction, the judgment shall state (a) the legal
qualification of the offense constituted by the acts committed
130. PP VS BUGARIN by the accused, and the aggravating or mitigating
circumstances attending the commission thereof, if there are
any; (b) the participation of the accused in the commission of
the offense, whether as principal, accomplice, or accessory after
DOCTRINE:
the fact; (c) the penalty imposed upon the accused; and (d) the
The requirement that the decisions of courts must be in writing
civil liability or damages caused by the wrongful act to be
and that they must set forth clearly and distinctly the facts and
recovered from the accused by the offended party, if there is
the law on which they are based serves many functions. It is
any, unless the enforcement of the civil liability by a separate
intended, among other things, to inform the parties of the
action has been reserved or waived.
reason or reasons for the decision so that if any of them appeals,
he can point out to the appellate court the findings of facts or
the rulings on points of law with which he disagrees. More than In case of acquittal, unless there is a clear showing that the act
that, the requirement is an assurance to the parties that, in from which the civil liability might arise did not exist, the
reaching judgment, the judge did so through the processes of judgment shall make a finding on the civil liability of the
legal reasoning. It is, thus, a safeguard against the impetuosity accused in favor of the offended party.
of the judge, preventing him from deciding by ipse dixit.
The decision of the trial court falls short of this requirement in
FACTS: at least three respects. First, it does not contain an evaluation
Herein accused-appellant was charged by her of the evidence of the parties and a discussion of the legal
daughter with 5 counts of rape and 1 count of attempted rape. questions involved. It does not explain why the trial court
After the prosecution and defense have presented their considered the complainants testimony credible despite the
respective evidence, trial court convicted the accused. In a two- fact that, as accused-appellant points out, complainant could
page decision, promulgated on February 11, 1993, the trial not remember the time of the day when she was allegedly
court, after giving a summary of the testimonies of the raped. It does not explain why accused-appellants licking of

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


104
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

complainants genital constituted attempted rape and not Moreover, the date of the commission of the rape is not
another crime. Second, the complainant testified that she had an essential element of the crime.
been raped five times, to wit, in November 1989, on December (b) However, since the charge in the Information for the
24, 1989, in June 1990, on March 14, 1991, and on December December 2003 incident is rape through carnal
23, 1991, and that once, on January 17, 1992, she was molested knowledge, Pareja cannot be found guilty of rape by
by her father who licked her private part, for which reason six sexual assault even though it was proven during trial.
informations were filed against him, but the decision found the
This is due to the material differences and substantial
accused-appellant guilty of only four counts of rape (which the
distinctions between the two modes of rape; thus, the
trial court erroneously said three counts) and one count of
attempted rape, without explaining whether accused-appellant first mode is not necessarily included in the second,
was being acquitted of one charge of rape. Third, the decision is and vice–versa. Consequently, to convict Pareja of
so carelessly prepared that it finds the accused-appellant guilty rape by sexual assault when what he was charged with
of three counts of consummated rape but sentences him to was rape through carnal knowledge, would be to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each of the four violate his constitutional right to be informed of the
counts of . . . rape. nature and cause of the accusation against him.
(c) Thus, even though the crime charged against Pareja
The requirement that the decisions of courts must be in writing was for rape through carnal knowledge, he can be
and that they must set forth clearly and distinctly the facts and convicted of the crime of acts of lasciviousness without
the law on which they are based serves many functions. It is violating any of his constitutional rights because said
intended, among other things, to inform the parties of the crime is included in the crime of rape.
reason or reasons for the decision so that if any of them appeals, Facts: AAA was thirteen (13) years of age when the alleged acts
he can point out to the appellate court the findings of facts or of lasciviousness and sexual abuse took place on three (3)
the rulings on points of law with which he disagrees. More than different dates, particularly [in December 2003], February
that, the requirement is an assurance to the parties that, in 2004, and March 27, 2004.
reaching judgment, the judge did so through the processes of
legal reasoning. It is, thus, a safeguard against the impetuosity AAA’s parents separated when she was [only eight
of the judge, preventing him from deciding by ipse dixit. years old]. At the time of the commission of the aforementioned
Vouchsafed neither the sword nor the purse by the Constitution crimes, AAA was living with her mother and with herein
but nonetheless vested with the sovereign prerogative of accused–appellant Bernabe Pareja who, by then, was
passing judgment on the life, liberty or property of his cohabiting with her mother, together with three (3) of their
fellowmen, the judge must ultimately depend on the power of children, aged twelve (12), eleven (11) and nine (9), in x x x,
reason for sustained public confidence in the justness of his Pasay City. With regard to the last incident, on March 27, 2004
decision. The decision of the trial court in this case disrespects [the March 2004 incident], it was AAA’s mother who saw
the judicial function. [Pareja] in the act of lifting the skirt of her daughter AAA while
the latter was asleep. Outraged, AAA’s mother immediately
brought AAA to the barangay officers to report the said
incident. AAA then narrated to the barangay officials that she
131. PP VS CA (99 PHIL 786) C/O LORELIE had been sexually abused by [Pareja] x x x many times x x x.
132. PP VS PAREJA (WON RAPE BY SEXUAL ASSAULT
NECESSARILY INCLUDED IN RAPE BY CARNAL To exculpate himself from liability, [Pareja] offered both denial
KNOWLEDGE) and ill motive of AAA against him as his defense. He denied
raping [AAA] but admitted that he knew her as she is the
daughter of his live–in partner and that they all stay in the same
house. [Pareja] averred that it would have been impossible that
Doctrine:
the alleged incidents happened. To justify the same, [Pareja]
(a) The date and time of the commission of the crime of described the layout of their house and argued that there was
no way that the alleged sexual abuses could have happened.
rape becomes important only when it creates serious
doubt as to the commission of the rape itself or the
Issue:
sufficiency of the evidence for purposes of conviction.
In other words, the “date of the commission of the rape (a) THE TRIAL COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN
becomes relevant only when the accuracy and CONVICTING [PAREJA] OF THE CRIMES CHARGED
truthfulness of the complainant’s narration practically NOTWITHSTANDING THAT HIS GUILT HAS NOT
hinge on the date of the commission of the crime.” BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


105
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

(b) THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING reasonable doubt that he committed the crime as charged. In
[PAREJA] BASED SOLELY ON THE PROSECUTION contrast, Pareja merely denied the accusations against him and
WITNESS’ TESTIMONY. even imputed ill motive on AAA.
Ruling:
Improbability of sexual abuse
This Court finds no reason to reverse Pareja’s conviction. in their small house and in the
presence of AAA’s sleeping siblings
Core Issue: Credibility of AAA
This Court is not convinced. Pareja’s living conditions could
Pareja claims that AAA’s testimony cannot be the lone basis of have prevented him from acting out on his beastly desires, but
his conviction as it was riddled with inconsistencies.19 they did not. This Court has observed that many of the rape
cases appealed to us were not always committed in seclusion.
We find such argument untenable. Lust is no respecter of time or place, and rape defies
constraints of time and space.
The recognized rule in this jurisdiction is that the “assessment
of the credibility of witnesses is a domain best left to the trial Medical examination
court judge because of his unique opportunity to observe their not indispensable
deportment and demeanor on the witness stand; a vantage
point denied appellate courts–and when his findings have been Pareja avers that the Medico–Legal Report indicating that there
affirmed by the Court of Appeals, these are generally binding is evidence of blunt force or penetrating trauma upon
and conclusive upon this Court.”21 While there are recognized examination of AAA’s hymen, “cannot be given any significance,
exceptions to the rule, this Court has found no substantial as it failed to indicate how and when the said signs of physical
reason to overturn the identical conclusions of the trial and trauma were inflicted.”
appellate courts on the matter of AAA’s credibility.
This Court has time and again held that an accused can be
The date and time of the commission of the crime of rape convicted of rape on the basis of the sole testimony of the
becomes important only when it creates serious doubt as victim. In People v. Perez,43 this Court aptly held:
to the commission of the rape itself or the sufficiency of the
evidence for purposes of conviction. In other words, the This Court has held time and again that testimonies of rape
“date of the commission of the rape becomes relevant only victims who are young and immature deserve full credence,
when the accuracy and truthfulness of the complainant’s considering that no young woman, especially of tender age,
narration practically hinge on the date of the commission would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of
of the crime.” Moreover, the date of the commission of the her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being
rape is not an essential element of the crime. subject to a public trial, if she was not motivated solely by the
desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed against her.
In this connection, Pareja repeatedly invokes our ruling in Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth. It is
People v. Ladrillo, implying that our rulings therein are highly improbable that a girl of tender years, one not yet
applicable to his case. However, the factual circumstances in exposed to the ways of the world, would impute to any man a
Ladrillo are prominently missing in Pareja’s case. In particular, crime so serious as rape if what she claims is not true.
the main factor for Ladrillo’s acquittal in that case was because (Citations omitted.)
his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause
of the accusation against him was violated when the Therefore, the absence of testimony or medical certificate on
Information against him only stated that the crime was the state of AAA’s anus at the time she was examined is of no
committed “on or about the year 1992.” consequence. On the contrary, the medical examination
actually bolsters AAA’s claim of being raped by Pareja on more
In this case, although the dates of the December 2003 and than one occasion, and not just by anal penetration. However,
February 2004 incidents were not specified, the period of time as the prosecution failed to capitalize on such evidence and
Pareja had to account for was fairly short, unlike “on or about prove the incidence of carnal knowledge, Pareja cannot be
the year 1992.” Moreover, Ladrillo was able to prove that he convicted of rape under paragraph 1 of Article 266–A of the
had only moved in the house where the rape supposedly Revised Penal Code.
happened, in 1993, therefore negating the allegation that he
raped the victim in that house in 1992. It is worthy to note that Under Article 266–A, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, as
Ladrillo also offered more than just a mere denial of the crime amended, rape by sexual assault is “[b]y any person who, under
charged against him to exculpate him from liability. He also had any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof,
an alibi, which, together with the other evidence, produced shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


106
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or court to avail of these remedies, stating therein the
object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.” reasons for his absence, within 15 days from the date
of promulgation of judgment. If the trial court finds
AAA positively and consistently stated that Pareja, in December that his absence was for a justifiable cause, the accused
2003, inserted his penis into her anus. While she may not have shall be allowed to avail of the said remedies within 15
been certain about the details of the February 2004 incident, days from notice or order finding his absence justified
she was positive that Pareja had anal sex with her in December
and allowing him the available remedies against the
2003, thus, clearly establishing the occurrence of rape by sexual
judgment of conviction
assault. In other words, her testimony on this account was, as
the Court of Appeals found, clear, positive, and probable.50 (c) The term surrender under Section 6, Rule 120 of the
Rules of Court contemplates an act whereby a
However, since the charge in the Information for the convicted accused physically and voluntarily submits
December 2003 incident is rape through carnal himself to the jurisdiction of the court to suffer the
knowledge, Pareja cannot be found guilty of rape by sexual consequences of the verdict against him. The filing of
assault even though it was proven during trial. This is due notices of appeal cannot suffice as a physical and
to the material differences and substantial distinctions voluntary submission of petitioners to the RTCs
between the two modes of rape; thus, the first mode is not jurisdiction. It is only upon petitioners valid
necessarily included in the second, and vice–versa. surrender, and only after proper motion, that they can
Consequently, to convict Pareja of rape by sexual assault avail of the remedy of appeal.
when what he was charged with was rape through carnal
knowledge, would be to violate his constitutional right to (d) Once an accused escapes from prison or confinement,
be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him.51 jumps bail (as in the case of petitioners), or flees to a
foreign country, he loses his standing in court. Unless
Nevertheless, Pareja may be convicted of the lesser crime of
acts of lasciviousness under the variance doctrine embodied in he surrenders or submits to the jurisdiction of the
Section 4, in relation to Section 5, Rule 120 of the Rules of
court, he is deemed to have waived any right to seek
Criminal Procedure. Thus, even though the crime charged
against Pareja was for rape through carnal knowledge, he relief from the court.
can be convicted of the crime of acts of lasciviousness (e) The judgment of conviction against petitioners had
without violating any of his constitutional rights because already acquired finality. Under Section 6, Rule 120 of
said crime is included in the crime of rape. the Rules of Court, they had only 15 days from the date
of promulgation of judgment within which to
surrender and to file the required motion for leave of
court to avail of the remedies against the judgment.
133. PP VS VILLENA (GR 184091)
Doctrine:
Facts: Petitioners were charged and found guilty of robbery-
(a) While it is true that an appeal is perfected upon the extortion by the RTC. During promulgation of their judgment
mere filing of a notice of appeal and that the trial court (September 3, 2007), they failed to appear despite proper
thereupon loses jurisdiction over the case, this notices. Warrants of arrest were issued against them pursuant
principle presupposes that the party filing the notice to Rule 120, Sec 6, Pars. 4 and 5 of the Rules of Court.
of appeal could validly avail of the remedy of appeal
It was only in October 11, 2007, that petitioners separately filed
and had not lost standing in court.
their notices of appeal with the RTC, saying that they did not
(b) Thus, the accused who failed to appear at the
receive the notices as they were transferred to another police
promulgation of the judgment of conviction shall lose
station. The RTC found their reason unmeritorious as they
the remedies available under the Rules of Court
should have notified their court of their new addresses
against the judgment(a) the filing of a motion for new
especially that they were the accused. Having to surrender is
trial or reconsideration (Rule 121), and (b) an appeal
their only option for appeal.
from the judgment of conviction (Rule 122). However,
the Rules allow the accused to regain his standing in Petitioners argue that their notices of appeal have complied
court in order to avail of these remedies by: (a) his with the Rules of Court and have placed them under RTC's
surrender, and (b) his filing of a motion for leave of jurisdiction and that the CA should have considered their

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


107
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

motion for reconsideration as they have offered their


explanation for their absence.
Thus, the accused who failed to appear at the promulgation of
Issue: whether or not the petition has merit? the judgment of conviction shall lose the remedies available
under the Rules of Court against the judgment(a) the filing of a
Ruling: The petition is without merit.
motion for new trial or reconsideration (Rule 121), and (b) an
appeal from the judgment of conviction (Rule 122). However,
While it is true that an appeal is perfected upon the mere
the Rules allow the accused to regain his standing in court in
filing of a notice of appeal and that the trial court
order to avail of these remedies by: (a) his surrender, and (b)
thereupon loses jurisdiction over the case, this principle
his filing of a motion for leave of court to avail of these
presupposes that the party filing the notice of appeal could
remedies, stating therein the reasons for his absence, within 15
validly avail of the remedy of appeal and had not lost
days from the date of promulgation of judgment. If the trial
standing in court. In this case, petitioners have lost their
court finds that his absence was for a justifiable cause, the
standing in court by their unjustified failure to appear during
accused shall be allowed to avail of the said remedies within 15
the trial and, more importantly, during the promulgation of
days from notice or order finding his absence justified and
judgment of conviction, and to surrender to the jurisdiction of
allowing him the available remedies against the judgment of
the RTC.
conviction.[17]

Petitioners contend that their act of filing notices of appeal was


Thus, petitioners mere filing of notices of appeal through their
already substantial compliance with the requirements of
new counsel, therein only explaining their absence during the
Section 6, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court which states:
promulgation of judgment, cannot be considered an act of
xxx
In case the accused fails to appear at surrender, despite the fact that said notices were filed within
the scheduled date of promulgation of
judgment despite notice, the promulgation 15 days from September 28, 2007, the purported date when
shall be made by recording the judgment in their new counsel personally secured a copy of the judgment of
the criminal docket and serving him a copy
thereof at his last known address or thru his conviction from the RTC. The term surrender under Section
counsel.
6, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court contemplates an act
If the judgment is for conviction and whereby a convicted accused physically and voluntarily
the failure of the accused to appear was
without justifiable cause, he shall lose the submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court to suffer the
remedies available in these rules against the
consequences of the verdict against him. The filing of
judgment and the court shall order his
arrest. Within fifteen (15) days from notices of appeal cannot suffice as a physical and voluntary
promulgation of judgment, however, the
accused may surrender and file a motion submission of petitioners to the RTCs jurisdiction. It is only
for leave of court to avail of these upon petitioners valid surrender, and only after proper
remedies. He shall state the reasons for
his absence at the scheduled motion, that they can avail of the remedy of appeal. Absent
promulgation and if he proves that his
absence was for a justifiable cause, he compliance with these requirements, their notices of appeal,
shall be allowed to avail of said remedies
within fifteen (15) days from notice.

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


108
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

substance to sustain a conviction; (2) the court


the initiatory step to appeal from their conviction, were
has jurisdiction; (3) the accused has been
properly denied due course. arraigned and he has pleaded; and (4) he is
convicted or acquitted, or the case is dismissed
without his express consent.
Even if petitioners notices of appeal were given due course, the
(b) Section 14(2),[59] Article III of the Constitution,
CA would only be constrained to dismiss their appeal. This is authorizing trials in absentia, allows the accused
because petitioners, who had standing warrants of arrest but to be absent at the trial but not at certain stages of
the proceedings, to wit: (a) at arraignment and
did not move to have them lifted, are considered fugitives from plea, whether of innocence or of guilt; (b) during
justice. Since it is safe to assume that they were out on bail trial, whenever necessary for identification
purposes; and (c) at the promulgation of sentence,
during trial, petitioners were deemed to have jumped bail when unless it is for a light offense, in which case, the
they failed to appear at the promulgation of their sentence. This accused may appear by counsel or representative.
At such stages of the proceedings, his presence is
is a ground for dismissal of an appeal under Section 8, Rule 124 required and cannot be waived.
of the Rules of Court. Once an accused escapes from prison (c) The accused who failed to appear without
or confinement, jumps bail (as in the case of petitioners), justifiable cause shall lose the remedies available
in the Rules against the judgment. However,
or flees to a foreign country, he loses his standing in within 15 days from promulgation of judgment,
court. Unless he surrenders or submits to the jurisdiction the accused may surrender and file a motion for
leave of court to avail of these remedies. He shall
of the court, he is deemed to have waived any right to seek state in his motion the reasons for his absence at
relief from the court. the scheduled promulgation, and if he proves that
his absence was for a justifiable cause, he shall be
allowed to avail of said remedies within 15 days
What is more, the judgment of conviction against from notice

petitioners had already acquired finality. Under Section 6,


Rule 120 of the Rules of Court, they had only 15 days from Facts: On November 28, 1991, an information for murder
the date of promulgation of judgment within which to committed against Emmanuel Mendoza was filed with the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 6, Tanauan, Batangas,
surrender and to file the required motion for leave of court against Joven de Grano (Joven), Armando de Grano (Armando),
to avail of the remedies against the judgment. As the and Estanislao Lacaba (Estanislao), together with their co-
accused Leonides Landicho (Leonides), Domingo Landicho
judgment was promulgated on September 3, 2007, petitioners
(Domingo), and Leonardo Genil (Leonardo), who were at-large.
had only until September 18, 2007 to comply with the
mandatory requirements of the said rule. Duly arraigned, Joven, Armando, and Estanislao pleaded "not
guilty" to the crime as charged; while their co-accused
Leonides, Leonardo, and Domingo remained at-large. After the
presentation of the parties’ respective sets of evidence, the RTC
rendered a finding the accused JOVEN DE GRANO, ARMANDO
134. PP VS DE GRANO (6/5/2009) DE GRANO, DOMINGO LANDICHO and ESTANISLAO LACABA,
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER. The
Doctrine: case as against accused Leonides Landicho and Leonardo Genil
(a) Double jeopardy has the following essential is was sent to the files or archived cases to be revived as soon
elements: (1) the accused is charged under a as said accused are apprehended. Subsequently alias warrants
complaint or an information sufficient in form and

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


109
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

of arrest were issued against accused Leonardo Genil and


Leonides Landicho. Armando, and downgrading the convictions of their co-accused

from murder to homicide; this, notwithstanding that all the


Only Estanislao was present at the promulgation despite
due notice to the other respondents. Thus, Respondents, accused, except Estanislao Lacaba, failed to personally appear
thru counsel, then filed a Joint Motion for Reconsideration
dated May 8, 2002, praying that the Decision dated April 25, at the promulgation of the Decision despite due notice thereof.
2002 be reconsidered and set aside and a new one be entered
acquitting them. Petitioner opposed to said motion but was
denied by the RTC and giving due course to Estanislaos notice Petitioners recourse to the CA was correct.
of appeal.Petitioner then filed a Petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the CA but the same was
dismissed on the ground of double jeopardy. A writ of certiorari is warranted when (1) any

Petitioner, through the Solicitor General, argues that, except for tribunal, board or officer has acted without or in excess of its or
Estanislao, none of the respondents appeared at the
his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
promulgation of the Decision. Neither did they surrender after
promulgation of the judgment of conviction, nor filed a motion lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (2) there is no appeal, nor any
for leave to avail themselves of the judicial remedies against the
decision, stating the reasons for their absence. The trial court plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
thus had no authority to take cognizance of the joint motion for
law.[53] An act of a court or tribunal may be considered as grave
reconsideration filed by the respondents as stated in Section 6,
Rule 120 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. As abuse of discretion when the same was performed in a
such, the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Having been issued without capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to lack
jurisdiction, the Order dated April 15, 2004 is of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and
void. Consequently, no double jeopardy attached to such void
Order. The CA, therefore, committed reversible error when it gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty, or to a
dismissed the petition for certiorari on the ground of double
virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, as where the
jeopardy.
Issue: power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner

(a) WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS because of passion or hostility.[54]


COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR AND
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF
JURISDICTION WHEN IT DISMISSED THE By way of exception, a judgment of acquittal in a
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI ON THE
GROUND OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY. criminal case may be assailed in a petition for certiorari under

Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, but only upon a clear showing by


Ruling: A peculiar situation exists in the instant case. Petitioner
the petitioner that the lower court, in acquitting the accused,
has sought recourse before the CA, via a petition
committed not merely reversible errors of judgment but also
for certiorari under Rule 65, from an Order of the trial court
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
drastically modifying its earlier findings convicting the
jurisdiction, or to a denial of due process, thus rendering the
respondents of the crime of murder, by acquitting Joven and
assailed judgment void.[55] In which event, the accused cannot

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


110
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

be considered at risk of double jeopardy the revered Section 6, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure

constitutional safeguard against exposing the accused to the provides that the accused who failed to appear without

risk of answering twice for the same offense. justifiable cause shall lose the remedies available in the

Rules against the judgment. However, within 15 days from

Double jeopardy has the following essential promulgation of judgment, the accused may surrender and

elements: (1) the accused is charged under a complaint or file a motion for leave of court to avail of these

an information sufficient in form and substance to sustain remedies. He shall state in his motion the reasons for his

a conviction; (2) the court has jurisdiction; (3) the accused absence at the scheduled promulgation, and if he proves

has been arraigned and he has pleaded; and (4) he is that his absence was for a justifiable cause, he shall be

convicted or acquitted, or the case is dismissed without his allowed to avail of said remedies within 15 days from

express consent.[56] notice.[62]

Although this Court does not absolutely preclude the When the Decision dated April 25, 2002 was

availment of the remedy of certiorari to correct an erroneous promulgated, only Estanislao Lacaba was

acquittal, the petitioner must clearly and convincingly present. Subsequently thereafter, without surrendering and

demonstrate that the lower court blatantly abused its authority explaining the reasons for their absence, Joven, Armando, and

to a point so grave and so severe as to deprive it of its very Domingo joined Estanislao in their Joint Motion for

power to dispense justice. Hence, any acquittal or conviction Reconsideration. In blatant disregard of the Rules, the RTC not

before a court having no jurisdiction would not violate the only failed to cause the arrest of the respondents who were at

principle of double jeopardy since it failed to attach in the first large, it also took cognizance of the joint motion. The RTC

place. clearly exceeded its jurisdiction when it entertained the joint

Motion for Reconsideration with respect to the respondents


Section 14(2),[59] Article III of the Constitution, authorizing
trials in absentia, allows the accused to be absent at the who were at large.
trial but not at certain stages of the proceedings, to wit: (a)
at arraignment and plea, whether of innocence or of guilt; However, with respect to Estanislao, the RTC
(b) during trial, whenever necessary for identification
purposes; and (c) at the promulgation of sentence, unless it committed no reversible error when it entertained the Motion
is for a light offense, in which case, the accused may appear
by counsel or representative. At such stages of the for Reconsideration. He was in custody and was present at the
proceedings, his presence is required and cannot be
promulgation of the judgment. Hence, the RTC never lost
waived.[60]
jurisdiction over his person. Consequently, the RTCs ruling

downgrading his conviction from murder to homicide

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


111
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

Issue:
stands. For Estanislao, and for him alone, the proscription
The question for decision is whether the court below had
against double jeopardy applies.
jurisdiction to modify its decision after the lapse of nearly seven
months from the date of its promulgation, notwithstanding the
fact that the fiscal's motion for reconsideration was filed within
X. RULE 121
fifteen days
135. PP VS TAMAYO
Held:
Principle:
Judgment in a criminal case may be revised or modified only
To summarize, judgment in a criminal case may be revised or
within the period to appeal, or fifteen days from the date of its
modified only within the period to appeal, or fifteen days from
promulgation. We see no reason why the Government may not
the date of its promulgation. We see no reason why the
make a motion for reconsideration as distinct from a motion for
Government may not make a motion for reconsideration as
new trial, before the judgment becomes executory, but such
distinct from a motion for new trial, before the judgment
motion cannot operate to suspend or extend the above period;
becomes executory, but such motion cannot operate to suspend
the court must act before that period terminates if the revision,
or extend the above period; the court must act before that
alteration, or modification are to be valid. Only a motion by the
period terminates if the revision, alteration, or modification are
defendant can interrupt the running of the period at the
to be valid. Only a motion by the defendant can interrupt the
expiration of which the judgment becomes final.
running of the period at the expiration of which the judgment
becomes final.

136. DEOTINA VS GONZALES (41 SCRA 68)  C/O RAZA

Facts:
XI. RULE 122
Timoteo Tamayo, the appellant, was charged in the Court of
First Instance of Ilocos Norte with illegal possession of firearm
and ammunition. 137. PP VS CITY OF MANILA (4/24/1987)
Principle:
On July 16, 1947, the accused, assisted by counsel, pleaded
guilty, whereupon the court, taking into consideration said plea Stated differently, where after the first prosecution a new fact
of guilty and the recommendation of the fiscal, sentenced him supervenes for which the defendant is responsible, which
to pay a fine of P100 and costs. changes the character of the offense and, together with the facts
existing at the time, constitutes a new and distinct offense, the
On July 24, 1947, the Provincial Fiscal moved the court to
accused cannot be said to be in second jeopardy if indicted for
reconsider its decision on the ground that the imposable
the new offense.
penalty was that provided in Republic Act No. 4, which became
effective on July 19, 1946. Evidently when the case was tried Facts:
and decision rendered, neither the court, the fiscal nor the
defendant was aware of the enactment of the new law, which In the case at bar, the incident occurred on October 17, 1971.
considerably increased the penalty for the possession, etc., of The following day, October 18, an information for serious
firearms and ammunition. physical injuries thru reckless imprudence was filed against
private respondent driver of the truck. On the same day, the
The defendant's counsel objected to the motion for victim Diolito de la Cruz died.
reconsideration. Nevertheless, the court, on February 14, 1948,
amended its decision and sentenced the accused to five years of On October 20, 1972, private respondent was arraigned on the
imprisonment, accessories of the law, and costs. charge of serious physical injuries thru reckless imprudence.

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


112
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

He pleaded guilty, was sentenced to one (1) month and one (1) Quemuel was convicted of the crime of libel and
day of arresto mayor, and commenced serving sentence. sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ranging from three (3)
months and eleven (11) days of arresto mayor to one (1) year,
On October 24, 1972, an information for homicide thru reckless eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days of prision
imprudence was filed against private respondent. correccional, and to pay the costs, he appealed to the Court of
Appeals which affirmed the judgment of conviction, but
On November 17, 1972, the City Court of Manila, upon motion imposed, instead the penalty of imprisonment, a fine of
P500.00, and added thereto a P2,000.00 indemnity to the
of private respondent, issued an order dismissing the homicide
offended party, with subsidiary imprisonment, not to exceed six
thru reckless imprudence case on the ground of double (6) months, in case of insolvency, aside from the costs.
jeopardy.
Petitioner maintains that the decision of the Court of Appeals is
Issue: erroneous because: 1) it awarded said indemnity, despite the
fact that the offended had not appealed from the decision of the
Whether or not there is double jeopardy trial court, which made no award of such nature; 2) the
assessment of damages in a criminal case, in which the civil
Held: action is impliedly included, is "vested in trial courts (and not
in appellate courts).
NO. Well-settled is the rule that one who has been charged with
an offense cannot be charge again with the same or Identical Decide.
offense though the latter be lesser or greater than the former.
However, as held in the case of Melo vs. People, supra, the rule Ruling:
of Identity does not apply when the second offense was not in
existence at the time of the first prosecution, for the reason that Petitioner's contention is untenable. The appeal in a criminal
in such case there is no possibility for the accused, during the case opens the whole case for review and this includes the
first prosec ution, to be convicted for an offense that was penalty, which may be increased 2 and the indemnity is part of
then inexistent. "Thus, where the accused was charged with the penalty. Hence, in Bagtas vs. Director of Prisons, 3 this Court
physical injuries and after conviction, the injured person dies, held that:
the charge for homicide against the same accused does not put
him twice in jeopardy." Stated differently, where after the first The indemnity which a person is sentenced to
pay forms an integral part of the penalty, it being
prosecution a new fact supervenes for which the defendant is
expressly provided by Article 100 of the Revised Penal
responsible, which changes the character of the offense and, Code that every person criminally liable is civilly
together with the facts existing at the time, constitutes a new liable.
and distinct offense, the accused cannot be said to be in second
jeopardy if indicted for the new offense. Although the authority to assess damages or indemnify in
criminal cases is vested in trial courts, it is so only in the first
As stated above, the victim Diolito dela Cruz died on the day the instance. On appeal, such authority passes to the appellate
information was filed, and the accused was arraigned two (2) court. Thus, this Court has, in many cases, increased the
days after, or on October 20, 1972. When the information for damages awarded by the trial court, although the offended
homicide thru reckless imprudence was, therefore, filed on party had not appealed from said award, and the only party
who sought a review of the decision of said Court was the
October 24, 1972, the accused-private respondent was already
accused. 4
in jeopardy.

139. CARINO VS DE CASTRO (4/30/2001)

138. QUEMUEL VS CA (22 SCRA 44) Facts:


Cario charged De Castro with violation of BP22.
Facts:
Subsequently, the charges were dismissed due to lack of

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


113
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

probable cause. Cario appealed the dismissal with the RTC Appeals or the Supreme Court, his participation is subordinate
which eventually affirmed said dismissal. to the interest of the People, hence, he cannot be permitted to
Thereafter, petitioner, through counsel (private prosecutor) adopt a position contrary to that of the Solicitor General. To do
and with the conformity of Asst. City Prosecutor, filed a petition so would be tantamount to giving the private prosecutor the
for review before the Court of Appeals. However, the Court of direction and control of the criminal proceeding, contrary to the
Appeals dismissed the petition because it was filed only by the provisions of law.
private prosecutor and not by the Office of the Solicitor General
as mandated by law.
We are cognizant of our ruling in the cases of Perez v.
Issue: Hagonoy,[15] Mobilia Products, Inc. v. Umezawa,[16] People v.
Santiago,[17] and Narciso v. Sta. Romana-Cruz,[18] where we held
WON criminal cases may be appealed by private prosecutor. that only the OSG can bring or defend actions on behalf of the
Republic or represent the People or state in criminal
Ruling: proceedings pending in the Supreme Court and the Court of
Appeals.
No.
In criminal proceedings on appeal in the Court of
(exception) At the same time, we acknowledged in
Appeals or in the Supreme Court, the authority to represent the
those cases that a private offended party, in the interest of
People is vested solely in the Solicitor General. Under
substantial justice, and where there appears to be a grave error
Presidential Decree No. 478, among the specific powers and
committed by the judge, or where there is lack of due process,
functions of the OSG was to represent the government in the
may allow and give due course to the petition filed. However,
Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in all criminal
the special circumstances prevailing in the abovementioned
proceedings.
cases are not present in the instant case. In those cases, the
Without doubt, the OSG is the appellate counsel of the
petitioners availed of petition for certiorari under Rule 65. In
People of the Philippines in all criminal cases.
the instant case, the petition was filed under Rule 45.

Although the petition for review before the Court of


Appeals was filed with the conformity of the Assistant City
Prosecutor, such conformity is insufficient, as the rules and
jurisprudence mandate that the same should be filed by the 140. MALAYAN INSURANE VS PICCIO (8/6/2014)
Solicitor General. Facts
The President of the Philippine Integrated Advertising Agency
– the advertising arm of the Yuchengco Group of Companies
While a private prosecutor may be allowed to
(Yuchengco Group), to which Malayan Insurance is a corporate
intervene in criminal proceedings on appeal in the Court of member – filed a Complaint-Affidavit for thirteen (13) counts of
Libel against herein respondents.

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


114
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

Upon the prosecutor’s finding of probable cause,[11] thirteen criminal proceedings is the general rule, but the rule admits the
(13) Informations were filed before the Makati-RTC. exception concerning ”all cases elevated to the Sandiganbayan
and from the Sandiganbayan to the Supreme Court, the Office of
A motion to dismiss was filed against one of these cases due to the Ombudsman, through its special prosecutor, shall represent
lack of jurisdiction which dismissal was granted. Thus, Malayan the People of the Philippines, except in cases filed pursuant to
appealed the dismissal. It was however found out that the Executive Orders Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986 That
appeal was taken by the private prosecutor without the only the Solicitor General may represent the People on appeal
authority of the OSG - as a result the appeal was dismissed. or certiorari in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in
all criminal proceedings is the general rule,79 but the rule
Issue: admits the exception concerning "all cases elevated to the
Can a criminal case be appealed without the authority of the Sandiganbayan and from the Sandiganbayan to the Supreme
OSG. Court, the Office of the Ombudsman, through its special
prosecutor, shall represent the People of the Philippines, except
Ruling: in cases filed pursuant to Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-
A, issued in 1986." More specifically, Section 4(c) of Republic
Of course no. Act No. 8249 authorizes the exception, viz: x x x x c. Civil and
The authority to represent the State in appeals of criminal cases criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with
before the Court and the CA is vested solely in the OSG[45]which Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986. x x x x
is “the law office of the Government whose specific powers and The procedure prescribed in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as well
as the implementing rules that the Supreme Court has
functions include that of representing the Republic and/or the
promulgated and may hereafter promulgate, relative to
People [of the Philippines] before any court in any action which
appeals/petitions for review to the Court of Appeals, shall apply
affects the welfare of the people as the ends of justice may to appeals and petitions for review filed with the
require.” Sandiganbayan. In all cases elevated to the Sandiganbayan
“if there is a dismissal of a criminal case by the trial court or if and from the Sandiganbayan to the Supreme Court, the
there is an acquittal of the accused, it is only the OSG that may Office of the Ombudsman, through its special prosecutor,
shall represent the People of the Philippines, except in cases
bring an appeal on the criminal aspect representing the
filed pursuant to Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued
People. The rationale therefor is rooted in the principle that the
in 1986.
party affected by the dismissal of the criminal action is the
People and not the petitioners who are mere complaining
Facts:
witnesses. For this reason, the People are therefore deemed
as the real parties in interest in the criminal case and,
This is a very long case. The meat of this case is more on political
therefore, only the OSG can represent them in criminal
law with respect to denial of right to speedy disposition because
proceedings pending in the CA or in this Court. In view of the
the Ombudsman took more than 6 years to investigate the
corollary principle that every action must be prosecuted or former DOJ Secretary and to file a case with the SB. But the
defended in the name of the real party in interest who stands to point is the Ombudsman, other the the Solicitor General is
be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or by the authorized to file an appeal with the Supreme Court
party entitled to the avails of the suit, an appeal of the criminal
case not filed by the People as represented by the OSG is
perforce dismissible. The private complainant or the offended
party may, however, file an appeal without the intervention of 142. PP VS CORNELIO (6/10/1971)
the OSG but only insofar as the civil liability of the accused is
concerned. He may also file a special civil action Criminal procedure; Death Sentence; Escape of death convict
for certiorari even without the intervention of the OSG, but only does not relieve Supreme Court of duty of reviewing – Where the
to the end of preserving his interest in the civil aspect of the accused, whom the CFI convicted 11 December 1946 of
case.” robbery with homicide and physical injuries and sentenced to
death, escaped from prison 13 February 1947, their escape
does not relieve the Supreme Court of the burden of
141. PP VS PEREZ (12/11/2013) automatically reviewing the case, in the same manner that a
withdrawal of appeal by a death convict would not remove the
case from the jurisdiction of the court.
Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Appeals; That only the
Solicitor General may represent the People on appeal or
certiorari in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in all

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


115
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

Evidence; Witnesses; Credibility of witnesses; When their failure The Court has thus satisfied itself of the correctness of the
to report at once the the names of perpetrators of crime does conclusions and judgment of the trial court.
not affect credibility of witnesses. – Although the crime was
committed 12 January 146, the fact that the two women At the trial, defense counsel concentrated efforts in his cross-
prosecution witnesses reported their positive identification of examination of the two victim — eye witnesses — Paula
the accused only in their sworn statements of February 19467 Galicia, 21-year old niece of the deceased Narciso Galicia, and
and 7 February 1946, respectively, is sufficiently explained, i.e. Tranquilina Galicia, 45-year old sister of the said deceased on
their fear for their lives, as their malefactors had threathened seeking to discredit their positive identification of the accused
to kill them if they report the matter to the authorities. The by bringing out the fact that these victims did not immediately
initial fears of the two victims-witnesses in divulging the divulge the names of the accused and their companions to the
identities of the accused until they were able to overcome Police authorities and did so only in their sworn statements of
them and gather enough courage from the assurance of police February 6, 1946 and February 7, 1946 which were submitted
protection by the authorities were understandable, and could by the chief of police of Candon with his criminal complaint for
not in any way detract from their straightforward testimony. murder filed on February 12, 1946 with the justice of the
peace court.
FACTS:
These victims, however, readily explained that they were in
The accused were charged with brigandage with murder and fear for their lives, as the malefactors had threatened to kill
physical injuries (this is an old case).The two eye witnesess them if they were to report the crime to the authorities. The
were also victims of pyshical injuries by the hand of the accused and their companions had treated the two women
accused. One of whom was maltreated and molested while the roughly and brutally, boxing twice Tranquilina's face when
other was shot in the knee. After obtaining the loot, the they could not get any more money from her and abruptly
malefactors told the inmates, including the two witnesses not shooting Paula through the right knee upon her telling them
to divulge the incident otherwise they would be killed. also that she had no more Money. 4 They had taken away
Narciso, tied his hands behind and then mercilessly shot him
At the trial, defense counsel concentrated efforts in his cross- at his back. The women knew the malefactors well, as they
examination of the two victim — eye witnesses — Paula used to go to their barrio, and were known to be "SS" or the
Galicia, 21-year old niece of the deceased Narciso Galicia, and ones who ruled over the barrio people as agents of the
Tranquilina Galicia, 45-year old sister of the said deceased on guerrillas in the mountains. 5 As Tranquilina put it. "I did not
seeking to discredit their positive identification of the accused reveal the identity of the accused because I was thinking of
by bringing out the fact that these victims did not immediately what the accused told us that they would kill all of us including
divulge the names of the accused and their companions to the the children," 6 and it was later on February 6, 1946, after the
Police authorities. MP's had assured them of protection "that I was able to make
up my mind to have the authorities protect us and bring the
matter to the authorities.
ISSUE:

That the two women were cringing in mortal fear and could
Whether or not the trial court is correct
not even talk right after the crime was testified to as part of
the res gestae furthermore by the chief of police, Romualdo de
HELD: Castro, who recounted that when he went early in the morning
of January 13, 1946, to the house of the deceased
NO. Narciso,"Paula Galicia could not talk because she was
groaning" 7 and "Tranquilina Galicia was trembling like a mad
The escape of the accused does not relieve the Court of the woman and I could not talk to her." 8
burden of automatically reviewing the case, in the same
manner that a withdrawal of appeal by a death convict would The initial fears of the two witness in divulging the identities
not remove the case from the jurisdiction of the Court.1 Hence, of the accused until they were able to overcome them and
the Court will no longer permit the case to remain further in gather enough courage from the assurance of police protection
its docket and will proceed to discharge its task of passing by the authorities were understandable and could not in any
upon the cause en consulta and reviewing the facts and the way detract from their straight-forward testimony.
law as applied thereto by the trial court and determining the
propriety of its imposition of the death penalty 143. PP VS DABAN (1/31/1972)

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


116
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

Criminal Procedure; Death sentence cannot become final until Now, as to the law. It would appear that respondent Demaisip
reviewed by the Supreme Court – The counsel’s explanation that is unaware of Section 9 of Rule 122. Thus: "The records of all
the escape of the accused from detention relieved him of the cases in which the death penalty shall have been imposed by
responsibility of pursuing the appeal, betrays his ignorance of any Court of First Instance, whether the defendant shall have
the law. The judgment of conviction imposing the death penalty appealed or not, shall be forwarded to the Supreme Court for
entered in the trial court is not final and cannot be executed and review and judgment as law and justice shall dictate. The
is wholly without force or effect until the case has been passed records of such cases shall be forwarded to the clerk of the
upon by the Supreme Court en consulta. The mere fact of escape Supreme Court within twenty (20) days, but not earlier than
of appellant is not sufficient cause for counsel’s failure to file fifteen (15) days, after rendition or promulgation of the
appellant’s brief. sentence in the form prescribed by section 11 of Rule 41. The
transcript shall also be forwarded as provided in section 12 of
FACTS: Rule 41 within five (5) days after the filing thereof by the
stenographer." The penalty imposed on appellant Daban y
Ganzon in the judgment of November 21, 1969 being one of
Respondent, Attorney Sixto P. Demaisip is the counsel for the of
death, the case was properly elevated to this Court. Moreover,
appellant beginning 1970 up to 1971. During the said period he
until after this Court has spoken, no finality could be attached
filed several motion for extension of time to file appellant’s
to the lower court decision. As explained in former Chief Justice
brief which amounted to 17 all in all.
Moran's Comments on the Rules of Court:"In this connection, it
must be emphasized that the judgment of conviction imposing
It was only then that on October 11, 1971 this Court issued a the death penalty entered in the trial court, is not final, and
resolution, reading as follows: cannot be executed and is wholly without force or effect until
the case has been passed upon by the Supreme Court en
"For failure to submit accused-appellant consulta; that although a judgment of conviction is entered by
Roscoe Daban y Ganzon's brief within the the trial court, said decision has none of the attributes of a final
extended period which expired on August 24, judgment and sentence; and that until it has been reviewed by
1971, Atty. Sixto P. Demaisip is hereby the Supreme Court which finally passes upon it, the same is not
required to explain, within ten (10) days from final and conclusive; and this automatic review by the Supreme
notice hereof, why disciplinary action should Court is something which neither the court nor the accused
not be taken against him." could waive or evade." The mere fact of escape of appellant,
therefore, could not be relied upon by respondent Demaisip as
What passed for an explanation for appellant's persistent sufficient cause for his failure to file appellant's brief.
failure to file appellant's brief was submitted on November 25,
1971, worded thus: "[Comes now] the accused-appellant, by
and thru the undersigned counsel de oficio, unto this Honorable
Supreme Court most respectfully manifests and explains that, 144. PP VS MATEO (GR 147678-87 7/7/2004)
in the opinion of the undersigned lawyer, grounded on settled FACTS:
jurisprudence, the escape of the prisoner automatically makes The MTC, Tarlac, Tarlac, Branch 1 found Mateo guilty beyond
the appeal useless and unnecessary because it is considered reasonable doubt of 10 counts of rape and to indemnify the
abandoned." It is his prayer, therefore, that the above be complainant for actual and moral damages. Mateo appealed to
considered a satisfactory explanation.. the CA. Solicitor General assailed the factual findings of the TC
and recommends an acquittal of appellant.
Issue:
ISSUE:
Whether or not an appeal of a conviction of death is Whether or not the case should be directly be forwarded to the
abandoned by the escape the prisoner convicted. Supreme Court by virtue of express provision in the
constitution on automatic appeal where the penalty imposed is
reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or death.
HELD:
RULING:
No. Up until now, the Supreme Court has assumed the direct
appellate review over all criminal cases in which the penalty
His explanation disregards the facts and betrays ignorance of imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment (or
the law. lower but involving offenses committed on the same occasion
or arising out of the same occurrence that gave rise to the more
serious offense for which the penalty of death, reclusion

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


117
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

perpetua, or life imprisonment is imposed). The practice finds the prosecution to present vital documentary evidence and
justification in the 1987 Constitution – prayed for nullifying the bias proceedings before the
Article VIII, Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the Sandiganbayan and ordering a re-trial before an impartial
following powers:
tribunal.
“(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal
or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide,
Issue: Whether or not there was due process in the acquittal of
final judgments and orders of lower courts in:
“x x x x x x x x x the accused from the charges against them.
“(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is
reclusion perpetua or higher.” Held: The denial on the motion for reconsideration of the
It must be stressed, however, that the constitutional provision petitioners by the court was set aside and rendered the decision
is not preclusive in character, and it does not necessarily of acquittal of the accused null and void. An order for a re-trial
prevent the Court, in the exercise of its rule-making power, was granted
from adding an intermediate appeal or review in favour of the
accused. In Deputy Tanodbayan Manuel Herrera’s expose, he affirmed
In passing, during the deliberations among the members of the the allegations in the second motion for reconsideration. He
Court, there has been a marked absence of unanimity on the
revealed that the Sandiganbayan Justices and Tanodbayan
crucial point of guilt or innocence of herein appellant. Some are
convinced that the evidence would appear to be sufficient to prosecutors were ordered by Marcos to whitewash the Aquino-
convict; some would accept the recommendation of acquittal Galman murder case. Malacañang wanted dismissal to the
from the Solicitor General on the ground of inadequate proof of extent that a prepared resolution was sent to the Investigating
guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Indeed, the occasion best Panel. Malacañang Conference planned a scenario of trial where
demonstrates the typical dilemma, i.e., the determination and the former President ordered then that the resolution be
appreciation of primarily factual matters, which the Supreme revised by categorizing the participation of each respondent;
Court has had to face with in automatic review cases; yet, it is
decided that the presiding justice, Justice Pamaran, (First
the Court of Appeals that has aptly been given the direct
mandate to review factual issues. Division) would personally handle the trial.

The Court then said that the then President (code-named


145. GALMAN VS SB (144 SCRA 43) EFFECT/S WHEN Olympus) had stage-managed in and from Malacañang Palace
THE TRIAL IS A SHAM "a scripted and predetermined manner of handling and
Facts: An investigating committee was created to determine disposing of the Aquino-Galman murder case;" and that "the
the facts on the case involving the assassination of Ninoy prosecution in the Aquino-Galman case and the Justices who
Aquino. It appears that majority and minority reports showed tried and decided the same acted under the compulsion of some
that they are unconvinced on the participation of Galman as the pressure which proved to be beyond their capacity to resist.
assassin of late Sen. Aquino and branded him instead as the fall Also the final outcome of the case of total absolution of the
guy as opposed to the military reports. Majority reports twenty-six respondents-accused of all criminal and civil
recommended the 26 military respondents as indictable for the liability was predetermined.”
premeditated killing of Aquino and Galman which the
Sandiganbayan did not give due consideration.

The office of the Tanod Bayan was originally preparing a Moreover, there was suppression of vital evidence and
resolution charging the 26 military accused as principal to the harassment of witnesses through the following: 1)
crime against Aquino but was recalled upon the intervention of Disappearance of witnesses two weeks after Ninoy's
President Marcos who insist on the innocence of the accused. assassination, 2) in the assignment of the case to Presiding
Marcos however recommended the filing of murder charge and Justice Pamaran, there was no evidence that the assignment
to implement the acquittal as planned so that double jeopardy was indeed by virtue of a regular raffle, except the
may be invoked later on. uncorroborated testimony of Justice Pamaran himself, 3) the
custody of the accused and their confinement in a military
The petitioners filed an action for miscarriage of justice against camp, instead of in a civilian jail, 4) the monitoring of
the Sandiganbayan and gross violation of constitutional rights proceedings and developments from Malacañang and by
of the petitioners for failure to exert genuine efforts in allowing Malacañang personnel. In rendering its decision, the

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


118
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

Sandiganbayan overdid itself in favoring the presidential new trial, or up to November 18, 2005, within which to file a
directive. Its bias and partiality in favor of the accused was notice of appeal.
clearly obvious. The evidence presented by the prosecution was
totally ignored and disregarded. On December 8, 2005, the prosecution filed a motion to dismiss
the appeal for being filed 10 days late, arguing that Neypes is
The record shows that the then President misused the inapplicable to appeals in criminal cases.
overwhelming resources of the government and his
authoritarian powers to corrupt and make a mockery of the On January 26, 2006, the petitioner filed the present petition for
judicial process in the Aquino-Galman murder cases. "This is prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a temporary
the evil of one-man rule at its very worst." Our Penal Code restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin
penalizes "any executive officer who shall address any order or the RTC from acting on the prosecution’s motions to dismiss the
suggestion to any judicial authority with respect to any case or appeal and for the execution of the decision
business coming within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts
Issues:
of justice."
1. Whether the “fresh period rule” enunciated
Impartial court is the very essence of due process of law. This
in Neypes applies to appeals in criminal cases.
criminal collusion as to the handling and treatment of the cases
by public respondents at the secret Malacañang conference Held:
(and revealed only after fifteen months by Justice Manuel
Herrera) completely disqualified respondent Sandiganbayan 1. YES. While Neypes involved the period to appeal in
and voided ab initio its verdict. The courts would have no civil cases, the Court’s pronouncement of a “fresh
reason to exist if they were allowed to be used as mere tools of period” to appeal should equally apply to the period
injustice, deception and duplicity to subvert and suppress the for appeal in criminal cases under Section 6 of Rule
truth. More so, in the case at bar where the people and the 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, for the
world are entitled to know the truth, the integrity of our judicial following reasons:
system is at stake.
First, BP 129, as amended, the substantive law on
The function of the appointing authority with the mandate of which the Rules of Court is based, makes no distinction between
the people, under our system of government, is to fill the public the periods to appeal in a civil case and in a criminal case.
posts. Justices and judges must ever realize that they have no Section 39 of BP 129 categorically states that “[t]he period for
constituency, serve no majority nor minority but serve only the appeal from final orders, resolutions, awards, judgments, or
public interest as they see it in accordance with their oath of decisions of any court in all cases shall be fifteen (15) days
office, guided only the Constitution and their own conscience counted from the notice of the final order, resolution, award,
and honor. judgment, or decision appealed from.”

Second, the provisions of Section 3 of Rule 41 of the


146. PP VS YU ( 2/9/2011) 15 DAY PERIOD 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and Section 6 of Rule 122 of the
APPLICABLE IN CRIMINAL CASES Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, though differently
worded, mean exactly the same. There is no substantial
difference between the two provisions insofar as legal results
Facts are concerned.

In a May 26, 2005 decision, the RTC convicted the petitioner of Third, while the Court did not consider in Neypes the
estafa. ordinary appeal period in criminal cases under Section 6, Rule
122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure since it involved
On November 16, 2005, the petitioner filed a notice of appeal a purely civil case, it did include Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of
with the RTC, alleging that pursuant to our ruling in Neypes v. Civil Procedure on petitions for review from the RTCs to the
Court of Appeals, she had a “fresh period” of 15 days from Court of Appeals (CA), and Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
November 3, 2005, the receipt of the denial of her motion for Procedure governing appeals by certiorari to this Court, both of

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


119
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

which also apply to appeals in criminal cases, as provided by of Appeals issued the Decision declaring its lack of jurisdiction
Section 3 of Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal on 15 December 2004. Balaba tried to correct the error only on
Procedure. 27 January 2005, clearly beyond the 15-day period to appeal
from the decision of the trial court. Therefore, the Court of
In light of these legal realities, we hold that the Appeals did not commit any error when it dismissed Balaba’s
petitioner seasonably filed her notice of appeal on November appeal because of lack of jurisdiction.
16, 2005, within the fresh period of 15 days, counted
from November 3, 2005, the date of receipt of notice denying
her motion for new trial.
XII. RULE 126
WHEREFORE, the petition for prohibition is hereby GRANTED.
150. PP VS QUELMAN (GR 116061 7/6/2007) (NOT
FOUND)

147. PP VS FERNANDEZ (186 SCRA 830)


Primarily, appellant claims that S/Sgt. Edgard Groyon and Rosa 151. NALA VS BARUSO JR. (GR 153087 8/7/2003)
Zamora-Manalad are not the best witnesses to prove the guilt DOCTRINE/S:
of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and that their The requisites of a valid search warrant are: (1) probable cause
testimonies would at best be secondary, if not hearsay, is present; (2) such presence is determined personally by the
considerin that there are others more qualified and convincing judge; (3) the complainant and the witnesses he or she may
to testify. This submission is bereft of merit. The matter of produce are personally examined by the judge, in writing and
presentation of its witnesses by the prosecution is not for the under oath or affirmation; (4) the applicant and the witnesses
accused or, except in a hmited sense, for the trial court to testify on facts personally known to them; and (5) the warrant
control. Discretion belongs to the city or provincial fiscal as to specifically describes the person and place to be searched and
how the prosecution should present its case. He has the right to the things to be seized.
choose whom he would present as witness. Moreover, if the
defense believes that there are other witnesses who could have Where entry into the premises to be searched was gained by
exculpated the accused, it should have called for them, even by virtue of a void search warrant, prohibited articles seized in the
course of the search are inadmissible against the accused.
compulsory process.
The plain view doctrine applies when the following requisites
concur: (a) the law enforcement officer in search of the
148. MELENCION VS SB evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a
An error in designating the appellate court is not fatal to the position from which he can view a particular area; (b) the
appeal. However, the correction in designating the proper discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; (c) it is
immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes
appellate court should be made within the 15-day period to
may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to
appeal. Once made within the said period, the designation of the
seizure.
correct appellate court may be allowed even if the records of
the case are forwarded to the Court of Appeals. Otherwise, the FACTS:
second paragraph of Section 2, Rule 50 of the Rules of court On June 25, 2001, PO3 Macrino L. Alcoser together with
would apply. The second paragraph of Section 2, Rule 50 of the his witness Ruel Nalagon applied for the issuance of a warrant
Rules of Court reads: An appeal erroneously taken to the Court to search the person and residence of petitioner Bernard R.
of Appeals shall not be transferred to the appropriate court but Nala, who was referred to in the application as “Rumolo Nala
shall be dismissed outright. alias Long” of “Purok 4, Poblacion, Kitaotao, Bukidnon.” The
application was filed in connection with petitioner’s alleged
illegal possession of one caliber .22 magnum and one 9 mm.
149. PP VS BALABA pistol in violation of Illegal Possession of Firearms. On the same
day, respondent Presiding Judge of RTC of Malaybalay City,
In this case, Balaba sought the correction of the error in filing issued Search and Seizure Warrant .On July 4, 2001, at around
the appeal only after the expiration of the period to appeal. The 6:30 in the morning, Alcoser and other police officer search the
trial court promulgated its Decision on 9 December 2002. petitioner’s house and allegedly seized the following: (1) one
Balaba filed his notice of appeal on 14 January 2003. The Court piece caliber .38 revolver (snub-nose) with Serial Number

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


120
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

1125609; (2) one pc. Fragmentation grenade (cacao type); (3) the part of the applicant and witnesses, the introduction of such
one pc. .22 long barrel; (4) 5- pcs live ammunition for caliber evidence is necessary especially where the issue is the
.38 revolver; and (5) 4- four pcs. of disposable lighter and existence of a negative ingredient of the offense charged, e.g.,
unestimated numbers of cellophane used for packing of shabu. the absence of a license required by law. On the other hand, the
Petitioner questioned the validity of the search warrant and judge must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavits but
filed an Omnibus Motion to Quash but was denied by the judge. must make his own extensive inquiry on the existence of such
license, as well as on whether the applicant and the witnesses
Lower court found that probable cause was duly have personal knowledge thereof.
established from the deposition and examination of witness
Ruel Nalagon and the testimony of PO3 Alcoser who personally In the case at bar, the search and seizure warrant was issued in
conducted a surveillance to confirm the information given by connection with the offense of illegal possession of firearms, the
Nalagon. The fact that the items seized were not exactly the elements of which are (1) the existence of the subject firearm;
items listed in the warrant does not invalidate the same and (2) the fact that the accused who owned or possessed it
because the items seized bear a direct relation to the crime of does not have the license or permit to possess the same.
illegal possession of firearms. Respondent judge also found that Probable cause as applied to illegal possession of firearms
petitioner was sufficiently identified in the warrant although would therefore be such facts and circumstances which would
his first name was erroneously stated therein as “Romulo” and lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that a
not “Bernard”, considering that the warrant was couched in person is in possession of a firearm and that he does not have
terms that would make it enforceable against the person and the license or permit to possess the same. Nowhere in the
residence of petitioner and no other. affidavit and testimony of witness Ruel Nalagon nor in PO3
Macrino L. Alcoser’s application for the issuance of a search
ISSUE/S: warrant was it mentioned that petitioner had no license to
(1) Whether or not petitioner was sufficiently described in the possess a firearm. PO3 Alcoser and his witness Ruel Nalagon
search and seizure warrant. did not have personal knowledge but only personal belief of
(2) Whether or not there was probable cause for the issuance petitioner’s lack of license to possess firearms, ammunitions
of a search and seizure warrant against petitioner. and explosives; and did not adduce the evidence required to
(3) Whether or not the firearms and explosive allegedly found prove the existence of probable cause. Hence, the search and
in petitioner’s residence are admissible in evidence against him seizure warrant issued on the basis of the evidence presented
even though said firearms were not listed in the search and is void.
seizure warrant.
(3) No. The settled rule is that where entry into the premises to
RULING: be searched was gained by virtue of a void search warrant,
(1) Yes. The failure to correctly state in the search and seizure prohibited articles seized in the course of the search are
warrant the first name of petitioner, which is “Bernard” and not inadmissible against the accused. In Roan v. Gonzales, the
“Romulo” or “Rumolo”, does not invalidate the warrant because prosecution sought to charge the accused with illegal
the additional description “alias Lolong Nala who is said to be possession of firearms on the basis of the items seized in a
residing at Purok 4, Poblacion, Kitaotao, Bukidnon” sufficiently search through a warrant which the Court declared as void for
enabled the police officers to locate and identify the petitioner. lack of probable cause. In ruling against the admissibility of the
. What is prohibited is a warrant against an unnamed party, and items seized, the Court said:
not one which, as in the instant case, contains descriptio
personae that will enable the officer to identify the accused Prohibited articles may be seized but only as long as the search
without difficulty. is valid. In this case, it was not because: 1) there was no valid
search warrant; and 2) absent such a warrant, the right thereto
(2) No. The probable cause for a valid search warrant has been was not validly waived by the petitioner. In short, the military
defined as such facts and circumstances which would lead a officers who entered the petitioners premises had no right to
reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense be there and therefore had no right either to seize the pistol and
has been committed, and that objects sought in connection with bullets.
the offense are in the place sought to be searched. This probable Conformably, the articles allegedly seized in the house of
cause must be shown to be within the personal knowledge of petitioner cannot be used as evidence against him because
the complainant or the witnesses he may produce and not access therein was gained by the police officer using a void
based on mere hearsay. In determining its existence, the search and seizure warrant. It is as if they entered petitioner’s
examining magistrate must make a probing and exhaustive, not house without a warrant, making their entry therein illegal, and
merely routine or pro forma examination of the applicant and the items seized, inadmissible.
the witnesses. Probable cause must be shown by the best
evidence that could be obtained under the circumstances. On

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


121
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

Moreover, it does not follow that because an offense is malum It is not necessary that the property to be searched or seized
prohibitum, the subject thereof is necessarily illegal per se. should be owned by the person against whom the search
Motive is immaterial in mala prohibita, but the subjects of this warrant is issued; it is sufficient that the property is under his
kind of offense may not be summarily seized simply because control or possession.
they are prohibited. A warrant is still necessary,because
possession of any firearm becomes unlawful only if the
required permit or license therefor is not first obtained. FACTS:
A search warrant of marijuana and shabu in appellant’s
So also, admissibility of the items seized cannot be justified residence was issued after probable cause was personally
under the plain view doctrine. It is true that, as an exception, determined by the judge after examination of the applicant.
the police officer may seize without warrant illegally possessed Appellant contends that the search warrant is a general
firearm, or any contraband for that matter, inadvertently found warrant which does not satisfy the particular offense which he
in plain view. However, said officer must have a prior right to violated, and the search conducted was unconstitutional and
be in the position to have that view of the objects to be seized. the items obtained inadmissible. The body of the warrant reads:
The plain view doctrine applies when the following requisites xxx
concur: (a) the law enforcement officer in search of the
evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a It appearing to the satisfaction of the undersigned after
position from which he can view a particular area; (b) the examining under oath, T/Sgt. Iluminada S. Evangelista and his
discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; (c) it is witness Marlon Alcayde that there is probable cause to believe
immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes that the above-named defendants are illegally in possession of
may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to undetermined quantity/amount of dried marijuana leaves and
seizure. The law enforcement officer must lawfully make an Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu) and sets of
initial intrusion or properly be in a position from which he can paraphernalias (sic) stored inside the nipa hut within the
particularly view the area. In the course of such lawful compound of their residence at Farconville Sub., Phase II, San
intrusion, he came inadvertently across a piece of evidence Pablo City which should be seized and brought to the
incriminating the accused. The object must be open to eye and undersigned.xxx
hand and its discovery inadvertent.
ISSUE/S:
No presumption of regularity may be invoked in aid of the 1) Whether or not the search warrant is void for being a general
process when the officer undertakes to justify an encroachment search warrant.
of rights secured by the Constitution. In this case, the firearms 2) Whether or not the the items seized were admissible in
and explosive were found at the rear portion of petitioner’s evidence.
house but the records do not show how exactly were these
items discovered. Clearly, therefore, the plain view doctrine RULING:
finds no application here not only because the police officers 1) No. It is clear that the search warrant cannot be assailed as a
had no justification to search the house of petitioner (their general search warrant because while it is for "Violation of RA
search warrant being void for lack of probable cause), but also 6425 known as the "Dangerous Drugs Act of 1992 as amended,"
because said officers failed to discharge the burden of proving the body thereof, which is controlling, particularizes the place
that subject articles were inadvertently found in petitioners to be searched and the things to be seized, and specifies the
house. offense involved, viz., illegal possession of marijuana and shabu
and paraphernalia in connection therewith. These are evident
from the clause, "are illegally in possession of undetermined
quantity/amount of dried marijuana leaves and
152. PP VS DICHOSO (GR 10126 6/4/1993) methamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu) and sets of
paraphernalias stored inside the nipa hut within the compound
of their residence at Farconville Sub., Phase II, San Pablo City."
DOCTRINE/S:
The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 is a special law that deals Appellant's contention that the search warrant in question was
specifically with dangerous drugs which are subsumed into issued for more than one (1) offense, hence, in violation of
"prohibited" and "regulated" drugs and defines and penalizes Section 3, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, is unpersuasive. He
engages in semantic juggling by suggesting that since illegal
categories of offenses which are closely related or which belong
to the same class or species. Accordingly, one (1) search possession of shabu, illegal possession of marijuana and illegal
warrant may thus be validly issued for the said violations of the possession of paraphernalia are covered by different articles
Dangerous Drugs Act. and sections of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, the search
warrant is clearly for more than one (1) specific offense. In

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


122
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

short, following this theory, there should have been three (3) rather general, since the requirement of a technical description
separate search warrants, one for illegal possession of shabu, would mean that no warrant could issue.
the second for illegal possession of marijuana and the third for
illegal possession of paraphernalia. This argument is pedantic. The right to a speedy trial is deemed violated only when: (1) the
The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 is a special law that deals proceedings are attended by vexatious, capricious, and
specifically with dangerous drugs which are subsumed into oppressive delays; or (2) when unjustified postponements are
"prohibited" and "regulated" drugs and defines and penalizes asked for and secured; or (3) when without cause or justifiable
categories of offenses which are closely related or which belong motive a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the
to the same class or species. Accordingly, one (1) search party having his case tried.
warrant may thus be validly issued for the said violations of the
Dangerous Drugs Act.
FACTS:
2) Yes. The view of the appellant that the search was illegal and Appellant is a Chinese national in his forties, a businessman,
the articles seized thereby cannot be used against him in and a resident of Baguio City. A raid conducted by operatives of
evidence since he does not own the nipa house searched or the the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and Philippine
lot wherein it was built, is unmeritorious. It is not necessary National Police Narcotics Command (PNP NARCOM) at
that the property to be searched or seized should be owned by premises allegedly leased by appellant and at his residence
the person against whom the search warrant is issued; it is yielded huge quantities of marijuana.
sufficient that the property is under his control or possession.
It was established, even by the defense's own evidence, that the Appellant moved to quash the search warrant on the ground
appellant and his spouse have been using the said nipa house. that it was too general and that the NBI had not complied with
He admitted that the nipa house is actually part of and adjacent the requirements for the issuance of a valid search warrant. The
to the big or main house in the Dichoso residential compound, pendency of said motion, however, did not stop the filing of the
and that he and his family have been using the nipa house as a appropriate charges against appellant. In an information dated
resting place even before the search. July 24, 1998, the City Prosecutor of Baguio City charged
Modesto Tee, alias “Estoy Tee,” with illegal possession of
Any doubt as to the appellant's control over the nipa house marijuana.
where the seized articles were recovered is wiped out by the
testimony of the defense's own witness, Francisco Calabia, who ISSUE/S:
affirmed that the appellant and his wife Sonia Dichoso actually 1) Whether or not the appellant's contention that the
reside therein while Redentor's parents and brother reside in description on the search warrant which says “an
the big house. undetermined amount of marijuana,” was too general and
hence makes the warrant void for vagueness.
2) Whether or not the failure of the witness to appear and
testify on twenty (20) hearing dates violated appellant’s
constitutional and statutory right to a speedy trial.
153. PP VS TEE (1/20/2003)

RULING:
1) No. The constitutional requirement of reasonable
DOCTRINE/S:
The constitutional requirement of reasonable particularity of particularity of description of the things to be seized is
description of the things to be seized is primarily meant to primarily meant to enable the law enforcers serving the
enable the law enforcers serving the warrant to: (1) readily warrant to: (1) readily identify the properties to be seized and
identify the properties to be seized and thus prevent them from thus prevent them from seizing the wrong items; and (2) leave
seizing the wrong items;and (2) leave said peace officers with said peace officers with no discretion regarding the articles to
no discretion regarding the articles to be seized and thus be seized and thus prevent unreasonable searches and seizures.
prevent unreasonable searches and seizures.What the What the Constitution seeks to avoid are search warrants of
Constitution seeks to avoid are search warrants of broad or broad or general characterization or sweeping descriptions,
general characterization or sweeping descriptions, which will which will authorize police officers to undertake a fishing
authorize police officers to undertake a fishing expedition to expedition to seize and confiscate any and all kinds of evidence
or articles relating to an offense. However, it is not required that
seize and confiscate any and all kinds of evidence or articles
relating to an offense. However, it is not required that technical technical precision of description be required, particularly,
precision of description be required, particularly, where by the where by the nature of the goods to be seized, their description
nature of the goods to be seized, their description must be must be rather general, since the requirement of a technical
description would mean that no warrant could issue.

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


123
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

assert his right, as well as the prejudice and damage caused to


Thus, it has been held that term narcotics paraphernalia is not the accused.
so wanting in particularity as to create a general warrant. Nor
is the description any and all narcotics and all implements, The Speedy Trial Act of 1998, provides that the trial period for
paraphernalia, articles, papers and records pertaining to the criminal cases in general shall be one hundred eighty (180)
use, possession, or sale of narcotics or dangerous drugs so days. However, in determining the right of an accused to speedy
broad as to be unconstitutional. A search warrant commanding trial, courts should do more than a mathematical computation
peace officers to seize a quantity of loose heroin has been held of the number of postponements of the scheduled hearings of
sufficiently particular. the case. The right to a speedy trial is deemed violated only
when: (1) the proceedings are attended by vexatious,
Tested against the foregoing precedents, the description an capricious, and oppressive delays; or (2) when unjustified
undetermined amount of marijuana must be held to satisfy the postponements are asked for and secured; or (3) when without
requirement for particularity in a search warrant. Noteworthy, cause or justifiable motive a long period of time is allowed to
what is to be seized in the instant case is property of a specified elapse without the party having his case tried.
character, i.e., marijuana, an illicit drug. By reason of its
character and the circumstances under which it would be In the present case, although the absences of prosecution
found, said article is illegal. A further description would be witness Abratique totaled twenty (20) hearing days, there is no
unnecessary and ordinarily impossible, except as to such showing whatsoever that prosecution capriciously caused
character, the place, and the circumstances.] Thus, this Court Abratique’s absences so as to vex or oppress appellant and deny
has held that the description illegally in possession of him his rights. On record, after Abratique repeatedly failed to
undetermined quantity/amount of dried marijuana leaves and show up for the taking of his testimony, the prosecution went
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu) and sets of to the extent of praying that the trial court order the arrest of
paraphernalia particularizes the things to be seized. Abratique to compel his attendance at trial. The prosecution
likewise tried to get the NBI to produce Abratique as the latter
The search warrant in the present case, given its nearly similar was in the Bureau’s custody, but to no avail. Eventually, the trial
wording, undetermined amount of marijuana or Indian hemp, court ordered the prosecution to waive its right to present
in our view, has satisfied the Constitutions requirements on Abratique and rest its case on the evidence already offered.
particularity of description. The description therein is: (1) as
specific as the circumstances will ordinarily allow; (2) Nor do we find a delay of twenty (20) hearing days to be an
expresses a conclusion of fact not of law by which the peace unreasonable length of time. Delay of less than two months has
officers may be guided in making the search and seizure; and been found, in fact, to be not an unreasonably lengthy period of
(3) limits the things to be seized to those which bear direct time.
relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued.
Said warrant imposes a meaningful restriction upon the objects Moreover, nothing on record shows that appellant Modesto Tee
to be seized by the officers serving the warrant. Thus, it objected to the inability of the prosecution to produce its
prevents exploratory searches, which might be violative of the witness. Under the Rules, appellant could have moved the trial
Bill of Rights. court to require that witness Abratique post bail to ensure that
the latter would testify when required. Appellant could have
2) No. A speedy trial means a trial conducted according to the moved to have Abratique found in contempt and duly
law of criminal procedure and the rules and regulations, free sanctioned. Appellant did neither. It is a bit too late in the day
from vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays. In Conde v. for appellant to invoke now his right to speedy trial.
Rivera and Unson, 45 Phil. 650, 652 (1924), the Court held that
where a prosecuting officer, without good cause, secures No persuasive reason supports appellant’s claim that his
postponements of the trial of a defendant against his protest constitutional right to speedy trial was violated. One must take
beyond a reasonable period of time, as in this instance, for more into account that a trial is always subject to postponements
than a year, the accused is entitled to relief by a proceeding in and other causes of delay. But in the absence of a showing that
mandamus to compel a dismissal of the information, or if he be delays were unreasonable and capricious, the State should not
restrained of his liberty, by habeas corpus to obtain his be deprived of a reasonable opportunity of prosecuting an
freedom. accused.
The concept of speedy trial is necessarily relative. A
determination as to whether the right has been violated
involves the weighing of several factors such as the length of the 154. ALVAREZ VS CFI OF TAYABAS (64 PHIL 33)
delay, the reason for the delay, the conduct of the prosecution DOCTRINE/S:
and the accused, and the efforts exerted by the defendant to

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


124
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

When the affidavit of the applicant or complainant contains 2) Whether or not the warrant was issued illegally for lack of an
sufficient facts within his personal and direct knowledge, it is adequate description of the books and documents to be seized.
sufficient if the judge is satisfied that there exists probable
cause; when the applicant’s knowledge of the facts is mere RULING:
hearsay, the affidavit of one or more witnesses having a 1) Yes. Section 1, paragraph 3, of Article III of the Constitution
personal knowledge of the facts is necessary. and Section 97 of General Orders 58 require that there be not
only probable cause before the issuance of a search warrant but
The true test of sufficiency of an affidavit to warrant issuance of that the search warrant must be based upon an application
a search warrant is whether it has been drawn in such a manner supported by oath of the applicant and the witnesses he may
that perjury could be charged thereon and affiant be held liable produce. In its broadest sense, an oath includes any form of
for damages caused. attestation by which a party signifies that he is bound in
conscience to perform an act faithfully and truthfully; and it is
The affidavit to be presented, which shall serve as the basis for sometimes defined as an outward pledge given by the person
determining whether probable cause exist and whether the taking it that his attestation or promise is made under an
warrant should be issued, must contain a particular description immediate sense of his responsibility to God. The oath required
of the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized. must refer to the truth of the facts within the personal
These provisions are mandatory and must be strictly complied knowledge of the petitioner or his witnesses, because the
with; but where, by the nature of the goods to be seized, their purpose thereof is to convince the committing magistrate, not
description must be rather generally, it is not required that a the individual making the affidavit and seeking the issuance of
technical description be given, as this would mean that no the warrant, of the existence of probable cause. The true test of
warrant could issue. sufficiency of an affidavit to warrant issuance of a search
warrant is whether it has been drawn in such a manner that
FACTS: perjury could be charged thereon and affiant be held liable for
The Anti-Usury Board of the Department of Justice presented to damages caused. The affidavit, which served as the exclusive
Judge David a sworn affidavit that a certain Narciso Alvarez is basis of the search warrant, is insufficient and fatally defective
in possession of books, receipts, chits, lists used by him as by reason of the manner in which the oath was made, and
money lender/usurer charging usurious rates in violation of therefore, the search warrant and the subsequent seizure of the
law. Affiant Almeda, chief of the task force, didn’t say that the books, documents and other papers are illegal. Further, it is the
information was based on his personal knowledge but was only practice in this jurisdiction to attach the affidavit of at least the
received by him from a reliable source. Subsequently, the judge applicant or complainant to the application. It is admitted that
issued the warrant ordering the search of Alvarez’ house. On the judge who issued the search warrant in this case, relied
June 4, 1936, the agents raided the subject place and seized exclusively upon the affidavit made by agent Almeda and that
different documents namely, banknotes, bankbooks, stubs, he did not require nor take the deposition of any other witness.
cashbooks, bills of lading, credit receipts, etc. Thereafter, the The Constitution does not provide that it is of an imperative
articles seized was not brought immediately to the custody of necessity to take the depositions of the witnesses to be
the judge who issued the search warrant. Alvarez moved that presented by the applicant or complainant in addition to the
the agents of the Board be declared guilty of contempt and affidavit of the latter. The purpose of both in requiring the
prays that all articles in question be returned to him because presentation of depositions is nothing more than to satisfy the
the search warrant issued was illegal. On the other hand, the committing magistrate of the existence of probable cause.
Anti-Usury Board pleaded that they be allowed to retain Therefore, if the affidavit of the applicant or complainant is
custody of the articles seized for further investigation. When sufficient, the judge may dispense with that of other witnesses.
the judge sustained the latter’s motion,. Alvarez elevated the Inasmuch as the affidavit of the agent was insufficient because
matter to the SC and prayed that the search warrant as well as his knowledge of the facts was not personal but merely hearsay,
the order of the judge authorizing the Anti-Usury Board to it is the duty of the judge to require the affidavit of one or more
retain custody be declared null and void. witnesses for the purpose of determining the existence of
probable cause to warrant the issuance of the search warrant.
ISSUE/S: When the affidavit of the applicant or complainant contains
1) Whether the Search warrant issued by the judge is illegal for sufficient facts within his personal and direct knowledge, it is
having solely as basis the affidavit of Agent Almeda in whose sufficient if the judge is satisfied that there exists probable
oath the latter declared that he had no personal knowledge of cause; when the applicant’s knowledge of the facts is mere
the facts which were to serve as basis for the issuance of the hearsay, the affidavit of one or more witnesses having a
warrant but he had knowledge thereof only through personal knowledge of the facts is necessary. Thus the warrant
information secured from a person whom he considered issued is likewise illegal because it was based only on the
reliable. affidavit of the agent who had no personal knowledge of the
facts

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


125
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

Rowell Tendero, instructed him to continue his


2) No. One of the grounds alleged by the petitioner in support surveillance of said beach resort with the hope of catching
of his contention that the warrant was issued illegally is the lack Danilo de Guzman.[8]
of an adequate description of the books and documents to be
seized. Section 1, paragraphs 3, of Article III of the Constitution, On October 26, 1992, at around 9:00 p.m., Danilo de Guzman
and section 97 of General Orders, No. 58 provide that the returned to Villamar Beach Resort with companion Edsel
affidavit to be presented, which shall serve as the basis for Martin. They rented one of the resort cottages. Fifteen (15)
determining whether probable cause exist and whether the minutes later, SPO1 Cuevas climbed the ladder which he
warrant should be issued, must contain a particular description perched on the concrete wall of the cottage. He, then, peeped
of the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized. through the window of the cottage and saw Danilo and Edsel
These provisions are mandatory and must be strictly complied
seated face to face while using shabu.[9] He also saw on top of
with; but where, by the nature of the goods to be seized, their
the table three (3) plastic bags of shabu, a weighing scale and
description must be rather generally, it is not required that a
technical description be given, as this would mean that no other drug related paraphernalia.
warrant could issue (People vs. Rubio, 57 Phil., 284; People vs. SPO1 Cuevas hurriedly descended the ladder and hailed a
Kahn, supra). The only description of the articles given in the
tricycle and instructed the driver to inform SPO2 Tendero
affidavit presented to the judge was as follows: "that there are
to proceed to Villamar Beach Resort
being kept in said premises books, documents, receipts, lists,
chits and other papers used by him in connection with his immediately.[10] Shortly, SPO2 Tendero, along with other
activities as money-lender, charging a usurious rate of interest, police officers, arrived at the beach resort. However,
in violation of the law." Taking into consideration the nature of instead of rushing to the cottage of De Guzman and Martin,
the article so described, it is clear that no other more adequate the police officers decided to wait for them to come out of
and detailed description could have been given, particularly the cottage.[11] SPO1 Cuevas explained that they did this so
because it is difficult to give a particular description of the as not to forewarn the two of their presence. Otherwise, the
contents thereof. The description so made substantially two might simply flush the shabu down the toilet bowl and
complies with the legal provisions because the officer of the law destroy the evidence.[12] The police officers waited the
who executed the warrant was thereby placed in a position whole night for De Guzman and Martin to come out of the
enabling him to identify the articles, which he did. cottage.

Finally, De Guzman came out at around 7:40 a.m. the next


day. SPO2 Tendero nabbed him upon seeing that his waist
155. PP VS DE GUZMAN (194 SCRA 601) was bulging with a gun. While Police Officer Vedar held De
Guzman, SPO2 Tendero went up the cottage to check on
Martin.[13] SPO2 Alfaro and SPO3 Benavise, accompanied
FACTS: by a chambermaid and a boy from the resort, also went up
with him.[14] Inside the cottage, the same paraphernalia
During the trial, the prosecution presented as its first which the witness saw the night before were found,
witness, SPO1 Arnel Cuevas, a police officer stationed at the namely, three plastic bags of shabu, a plastic scoop, a
Noveleta Police Station. He testified that prior to the arrest burner, a lighter, several empty rolled aluminum foils,
of accused-appellant, Danilo de Guzman, the Police Chief three (3) pieces of tooter, rubber band, several pieces of
Inspector of the Cavite Philippine National Police paper, a black clutch bag containing a disposable lighter,
Command issued an Order of Battle listing the names of the two (2) forceps, a pair of scissors, a knife and a key holder
suspected drug pushers in Cavite City.[4] Included therein with a knife, filter, sandpaper, electric plug, pocket
was the name of accused-appellant. In response to the said electronic weighing scale.[15]
directive, the Noveleta Police Station assigned SPO1 Arnel
Cuevas to conduct surveillance at the Villamar Beach Resort.[5] The offenders were brought to the police station for
questioning and detention.[16] The police officers were without
On October 18, 1992, SPO1 Arnel Cuevas spotted Danilo de warrants of arrest or search warrants at the time of the arrests
Guzman at the Villamar Beach Resort, but the latter stayed and seizure of evidence.[17] As the operation was conducted
for only thirty (30) minutes.[6]Subsequently, he learned largely during nighttime, the police officers were unable to
that De Guzman was engaged in a drug sale that day and secure the necessary warrants for fear of leaving the place of
reported the same to headquarters.[7] Pursuant to his surveillance.[18]
report, the Chief of Intelligence of their station, SPO2

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


126
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

, the Court finds the accused Danilo de Guzman y Perez guilty arrested person and that the object of the search was open
beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Sec. 16, Art. III, to the eye, as in the instant case.
Republic Act 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs
Act of 1972, as amended. Furthermore, accused-appellant in this case is estopped
from questioning the legality of his arrest upon his failure to
move for quashal of the information against him prior to his
arraignment and entry of plea.[53] Any irregularity was
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE REGIONAL TRIAL therefore cured upon their voluntary submission to the trial
COURT OF CAVITE CITY, WITH ALL DUE RESPECTS (sic), courts jurisdiction.[54]
COMMITTED A PATENT REVERSIBLE ERROR IN NOT FINDING
THAT THE EVIDENCE SO FAR PRESENTED WAS OBTAINED IN WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, the decision of the
AN ILLEGAL SEARCH; Regional Trial Court, Cavite City, Branch 17, in Criminal Case
No. 39-94, is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that accused-
appellant Danilo de Guzman y Perez is sentenced to suffer
RULING: NO. imprisonment for six (6) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to
twelve (12) years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of Twelve
Necessarily, the search conducted immediately after the Thousand Pesos (P12,000.00).
accused-appellants arrest was valid. Rule 126, Section 12
of the Rules of Court provides: In Criminal Case No. 40-94, the decision of the trial court finding
accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
Sec. 12. Search incident to lawful arrest. A person lawfully of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition, and sentencing
arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years
anything which may be used as proof of the commission of and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to twenty
an offense, without a search warrant. (20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, is AFFIRMED in
toto.
The legal parameters of this rule limit its application to
instances when the search is made contemporaneous to the SO ORDERED.
arrest and within a permissible area of search.

In this case, it was impossible for the police officers to obtain


156. VALEROSO VS CA (9/3/2004)
a search warrant as they were merely on surveillance, and
to do so might abort any possible illegal activity that was
taking place. Any attempt at leaving the place may cause
Facts:
them to lose sight of the accused-appellant
altogether. Second, their presence in the area was not Prosecution theory:
planned as they acted purely on a tip given by a fellow
officer. Further, there was not enough opportunity to obtain On July 10, 1996, at around 9:30 a.m., Disuanco received a
a warrant of arrest or a search warrant as the surveillance Dispatch Order from the desk officer directing him and
was conducted from 10:00 oclock in the evening up to 7:00 three (3) other policemen to serve a Warrant of Arrest,
oclock in the morning. issued by Judge Ignacio Salvador, against Valeroso for a
case of kidnapping with ransom.6
The search conducted immediately after accused-appellant was
apprehended was made more necessary by the presence of his After a briefing, the team conducted the necessary surveillance
companion inside the cottage which was just a few steps away on Valeroso checking his hideouts in Cavite, Caloocan, and
from where he stood. The presence of accused-appellants Bulacan. Eventually, the team members proceeded to the
companion posed a danger to the police officers life and limb, Integrated National Police (INP) Central Police Station in Culiat,
hence, it became necessary for them to locate him. Upon entry Quezon City, where they saw Valeroso about to board a tricyle.
at the rented cottage, the police officers saw the shabu and Disuanco and his team approached Valeroso. They put him
drug-related paraphernalia scattered on top of the table. under arrest, informed him of his constitutional rights, and
bodily searched him. They found a Charter Arms revolver,
Jurisprudence allows the seizure of personalty despite bearing Serial No. 52315, with five (5) pieces of live
absence of warrant under the plain view doctrine, so long ammunition, tucked in his waist.7
as the area of search is within the immediate control of the

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


127
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

Valeroso was then brought to the police station for required before a law enforcer can validly search or seize
questioning. Upon verification in the Firearms and the person, house, papers, or effects of any individual.30
Explosives Division in Camp Crame, Deriquito presented a
certification8 that the subject firearm was not issued to To underscore the significance the law attaches to the
Valeroso, but was licensed in the name of a certain Raul fundamental right of an individual against unreasonable
Palencia Salvatierra of Sampaloc, Manila.9 searches and seizures, the Constitution succinctly declares in
Article III, Section 3(2), that "any evidence obtained in
Defense theory: violation of this or the preceding section shall be
inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any
On the other hand, Valeroso, SPO3 Agustin R. Timbol, Jr. proceeding."31
(Timbol), and Adrian Yuson testified for the defense. Their
testimonies are summarized as follows: The above proscription is not, however, absolute. The
following are the well-recognized instances where
On July 10, 1996, Valeroso was sleeping inside a room in the searches and seizures are allowed even without a valid
boarding house of his children located at Sagana Homes, warrant:
Barangay New Era, Quezon City. He was awakened by four (4)
heavily armed men in civilian attire who pointed their guns at 1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest;
him and pulled him out of the room.10 The raiding team tied his
hands and placed him near the faucet (outside the room) then 2. [Seizure] of evidence in "plain view." The elements are:
went back inside, searched and ransacked the room. Moments a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless
later, an operative came out of the room and exclaimed, arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit
"Hoy, may nakuha akong baril sa loob!"11 of their official duties; b) the evidence was inadvertently
discovered by the police who have the right to be where
Disuanco informed Valeroso that there was a standing they are; c) the evidence must be immediately apparent;
warrant for his arrest. However, the raiding team was not and d) "plain view" justified mere seizure of evidence
armed with a search warrant.12 without further search;

On May 6, 1998, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 97, 3. Search of a moving vehicle. Highly regulated by the
Quezon City, convicted Valeroso as charged. On appeal, the government, the vehicle’s inherent mobility reduces
Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed16 the RTC decision expectation of privacy especially when its transit in public
thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion
ISSUE: Whether or not Valeroso’s constitutional rights amounting to probable cause that the occupant committed a
against unreasonable search and seizure was violated? criminal activity;
RULING: YES. 4. Consented warrantless search;
The Court notes that the version of the prosecution, as to 5. Customs search;
where Valeroso was arrested, is different from the version
of the defense. 6. Stop and Frisk;

The right against unreasonable searches and seizures is 7. Exigent and emergency circumstances.32
secured by Section 2, Article III of the Constitution which states:
8. Search of vessels and aircraft; [and]
SEC. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches 9. Inspection of buildings and other premises for the
and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall enforcement of fire, sanitary and building regulations.33
be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest In the exceptional instances where a warrant is not necessary
shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined to effect a valid search or seizure, what constitutes a reasonable
personally by the judge after examination under oath or or unreasonable search or seizure is purely a judicial question,
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may determinable from the uniqueness of the circumstances
produce, and particularly describing the place to be involved, including the purpose of the search or seizure, the
searched and the persons or things to be seized. presence or absence of probable cause, the manner in which the
From this constitutional provision, it can readily be gleaned search and seizure was made, the place or thing searched, and
that, as a general rule, the procurement of a warrant is the character of the articles procured.34

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


128
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

In light of the enumerated exceptions, and applying the test other police officers remained inside the room and
of reasonableness laid down above, is the warrantless ransacked the locked cabinet44 where they found the subject
search and seizure of the firearm and ammunition valid? firearm and ammunition.45 With such discovery, Valeroso
was charged with illegal possession of firearm and
We answer in the negative. ammunition.
For one, the warrantless search could not be justified as an From the foregoing narration of facts, we can readily
incident to a lawful arrest. Searches and seizures incident conclude that the arresting officers served the warrant of
to lawful arrests are governed by Section 13, Rule 126 of the arrest without any resistance from Valeroso. They placed
Rules of Court, which reads: him immediately under their control by pulling him out of
SEC. 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. – A person lawfully the bed, and bringing him out of the room with his hands
arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything tied. To be sure, the cabinet which, according to Valeroso,
which may have been used or constitute proof in the was locked, could no longer be considered as an "area within
commission of an offense without a search warrant. his immediate control" because there was no way for him to
take any weapon or to destroy any evidence that could be
We would like to stress that the scope of the warrantless search used against him.
is not without limitations. In People v. Leangsiri,35People v.
Cubcubin, Jr.,36 and People v. Estella,37 we had the occasion to The arresting officers would have been justified in searching
lay down the parameters of a valid warrantless search and the person of Valeroso, as well as the tables or drawers in
seizure as an incident to a lawful arrest. front of him, for any concealed weapon that might be used
against the former. But under the circumstances obtaining,
When an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the arresting there was no comparable justification to search through all
officer to search the person arrested in order to remove the desk drawers and cabinets or the other closed or
any weapon that the latter might use in order to resist concealed areas in that room itself.46
arrest or effect his escape. Otherwise, the officer’s safety
might well be endangered, and the arrest itself frustrated. It is worthy to note that the purpose of the exception
In addition, it is entirely reasonable for the arresting (warrantless search as an incident to a lawful arrest) is to
officer to search for and seize any evidence on the protect the arresting officer from being harmed by the
arrestee’s person in order to prevent its concealment or person arrested, who might be armed with a concealed
destruction.38 weapon, and to prevent the latter from destroying evidence
within reach. The exception, therefore, should not be
Moreover, in lawful arrests, it becomes both the duty and strained beyond what is needed to serve its purpose.47 In the
the right of the apprehending officers to conduct a case before us, search was made in the locked cabinet which
warrantless search not only on the person of the suspect, cannot be said to have been within Valeroso’s immediate
but also in the permissible area within the latter’s control. Thus, the search exceeded the bounds of what may
reach.39 Otherwise stated, a valid arrest allows the seizure be considered as an incident to a lawful arrest.48
of evidence or dangerous weapons either on the person of
the one arrested or within the area of his immediate Nor can the warrantless search in this case be justified under
control.40 The phrase "within the area of his immediate control" the "plain view doctrine."
means the area from within which he might gain possession of a The "plain view doctrine" may not be used to launch unbridled
weapon or destructible evidence.41 A gun on a table or in a searches and indiscriminate seizures or to extend a general
drawer in front of one who is arrested can be as dangerous to exploratory search made solely to find evidence of defendant’s
the arresting officer as one concealed in the clothing of the guilt. The doctrine is usually applied where a police officer is
person arrested.42 not searching for evidence against the accused, but nonetheless
In the present case, Valeroso was arrested by virtue of a inadvertently comes across an incriminating object.49
warrant of arrest allegedly for kidnapping with ransom. At As enunciated in People v. Cubcubin, Jr.50 and People v.
that time, Valeroso was sleeping inside the boarding house Leangsiri:51
of his children. He was awakened by the arresting officers
who were heavily armed. They pulled him out of the room, What the "plain view" cases have in common is that the police
placed him beside the faucet outside the room, tied his officer in each of them had a prior justification for an intrusion
hands, and then put him under the care of Disuanco. 43 The in the course of which[,] he came inadvertently across a piece

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


129
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

of evidence incriminating the accused. The doctrine serves to 3. At 12:00 N. on August 6th, elements of the CSG searched the
supplement the prior justification – whether it be a warrant for premises at 239-B Mayon Street, Quezon City. The stated time
another object, hot pursuit, search incident to lawful arrest, or is an allegation of petitioners, not specifically denied by
some other legitimate reason for being present unconnected respondents. In their COMMENT, however, respondents
with a search directed against the accused – and permits the have alleged that the search was conducted "late on the
warrantless seizure. Of course, the extension of the original same day"; that is late on august 6th.
justification is legitimate only where it is immediately apparent
to the police that they have evidence before them; the "plain 4. On August 6th, at around 9:00 A.M., Lt. Col. Virgilio G.
view" doctrine may not be used to extend a general exploratory Saldajeno of the CSG, applied for a Search Warrant from
search from one object to another until something respondent Hon. Ernani Cruz Paño, Executive Judge of the
incriminating at last emerges.52 Regional Trial Court in Quezon City, to be served at No. 239-B
Mayon Street, Quezon City, determined tyo be the leased
Indeed, the police officers were inside the boarding house of residence of AGUILAR-ROQUE, after almost a month of "round
Valeroso’s children, because they were supposed to serve a the clock surveillance" of the premises as a "suspected
warrant of arrest issued against Valeroso. In other words, the underground house of the CPP/NPA." AGUILAR-ROQUE has
police officers had a prior justification for the intrusion. been long wanted by the military for being a high ranking
Consequently, any evidence that they would inadvertently officer of the Communist Party of the Philippines, particularly
discover may be used against Valeroso. However, in this case, connected with the MV Karagatan/Doña Andrea cases.
the police officers did not just accidentally discover the subject
firearm and ammunition; they actually searched for evidence (a) The Search Warrant was issued in proceedings entitled
against Valeroso. "People of the Philippines vs. Mila Aguilar-Roque, Accused,
Search Warrant No. 80- 84 for rebellion" (the SEARCH
Clearly, the search made was illegal, a violation of Valeroso’s WARRANT CASE). Judge Panos Court was Branch 88.
right against unreasonable search and seizure. Consequently,
the evidence obtained in violation of said right is inadmissible 5. In connection with the search made at 12:00 N. of August
in evidence against him.1avvphi1 6th the following may be stated:

Because a warrantless search is in derogation of a (a) TOLENTINO was a person then in charge of the premises.
constitutional right, peace officers who conduct it cannot He was arrested by the searching party presumably without a
invoke regularity in the performance of official functions.54 warrant of arrest.

(b) The searching party seized 428 documents and written


materials, 2 and additionally a portable typewriter, and 2
157. NOLASCO VS PANO (147 SCRA 509) wooden boxes, making 431 items in all. 3
FACTS: (c) According to the Return, submitted in the SEARCH
The three petitioners will be referred to through their WARRANT CASE on August 10th, 4 the search was made in
surnames of NOLASCO, AGUILAR-ROQUE and TOLENTINO. the presence of Dra. Marciana Galang, owner of the
premises, and of two (2) Barangay Tanods. No mention was
1. Prior to August 6, 1984 (hereinafter to be referred to without made that TOLENTINO was present. The list of the 428
the year), AGUILAR-ROQUE was one of the accused of articles and documents attached to the Return was signed
Rebellion in Criminal Case No. by the two Barangay Tanods, but not by Dra. Galang.
MC-25-113 of Military Commission No. 25, both cases being
entitled "People of the Philippines vs. Jose Ma. Sison, et al." She 6. (a) On August 10th, the three petitioners, AGUILAR-
was then still at large. ROQUE, NOLASCO and TOLENTINO, were charged before
the Quezon City Fiscal's Office (the CITY FISCAL, for short)
2. At 11:30 A.M. on August 6th, AGUILAR-ROQUE and upon complaint filed by the CSG against petitioners for
NOLASCO were arrested by a Constabulary Security Group "Subversion/Rebellion and/or Conspiracy to Commit
(CSG) at the intersection of Mayon Street and P. Margall Rebellion/Subversion."
Street, Quezon City. The stated time is an allegation of
petitioners, not denied by respondents. The record does not (b) On August 13th, the CITY FISCAL filed an Information
disclose that a warrant of arrest had previously been issued for Violation of Presidential Decree No. 33 (Illegal
against NOLASCO. Possession of Subversive Documents) against petitioners
before Branch 42 of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


130
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

(the SUBVERSIVE DOCUMENTS CASE), respondent Judge Communist Party of the Philippines and the National
Antonio P. Santos, presiding. Democratic Front. It does not specify what the subversive
books and instructions are; what the manuals not
otherwise available to the public contain to make them
8. (a) On December 12th, petitioners filed a Motion to Suppress subversive or to enable them to be used for the crime of
in the SUBVERSIVE DOCUMENTS CASE, praying that such of the rebellion. There is absent a definite guideline to the
431 items belonging to them be returned to them. It was searching team as to what items might be lawfully seized
claimed that the proceedings under the Search Warrant were thus giving the officers of the law discretion regarding
unlawful. Judge Santos denied the Motion on January 7, 1985 on what articles they should seize as, in fact, taken also were a
the ground that the validity of the Search Warrant has to be portable typewriter and 2 wooden boxes. It is thus in the
litigated in the SEARCH WARRANT CASE. He was apparently nature of a general warrant and infringes on the
not aware of the Order of Judge Paño of December 13th issued constitutional mandate requiring particular description of
in the SEARCH WARRANT CASE. the things to be seized. In the recent rulings of this Court,
search warrants of similar description were considered
Issues: Whether or not the search warrant is valid? null and void for being too general. Thus:

Whether or not the petitioners may recover the 431 The lack of particularization is also evident in the
items seized? examination of the witness presented by the applicant for
Search Warrant.

SECOND ISSUE: NO.

Notwithstanding the irregular issuance of the Search


RULING: Warrant and although, ordinarily, the articles seized under
1. No, the search warrant is not valid. an invalid search warrant should be returned, they cannot
We find merit in the Petition. be ordered returned in the case at bar to AGUILAR-ROQUE.
Some searches may be made without a warrant. Thus,
Section 3, Article IV of the Constitution, guarantees the right of Section 12, Rule 126, Rules of Court, explicitly provides:
the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever Section 12. Search without warrant of person arrested.—A
nature and for any purpose. It also specifically provides that no person charged with an offense may be searched for dangerous
Search Warrant shall issue except upon probable cause to be weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the
determined by the Judge or such other responsible officer as commission of the offense.
may be authorized by law, after examination under oath or The provision is declaratory in the sense that it is confined to
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may the search, without a search warrant, of a person who had been
produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched arrested. It is also a general rule that, as an incident of an arrest,
and the things to be seized. the place or premises where the arrest was made can also be
The disputed Search Warrant (No. 80-84) describes the search without a search warrant. In this latter case, "the extent
personalities to be seized as follows: and reasonableness of the search must be decided on its own
facts and circumstances, and it has been stated that, in the
Documents, papers and other records of the Communist Party application of general rules, there is some confusion in the
of the Phihppines/New Peoples Army and/or the National decisions as to what constitutes the extent of the place or
Democratic Front, such as Minutes of the Party Meetings, Plans premises which may be searched. 12 "What must be considered
of these groups, Programs, List of possible supporters, is the balancing of the individual's right to privacy and the
subversive books and instructions, manuals not otherwise public's interest in the prevention of crime and the
available to the public, and support money from foreign or local apprehension of criminals." 13
sources.
Considering that AGUILAR-ROQUE has been charged with
It is at once evident that the foregoing Search Warrant Rebellion, which is a crime against public order; that the
authorizes the seizure of personal properties vaguely described warrant for her arrest has not been served for a
and not particularized. It is an all- embracing description considerable period of time; that she was arrested within
which includes everything conceivable regarding the the general vicinity of her dwelling; and that the search of

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


131
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

her dwelling was made within a half hour of her arrest, we Based on the evidence presented by the prosecution, the police
are of the opinion that in her respect, the search at No. 239- officers went to Zamora and Pandacan Streets, Manila to
B Mayon Street, Quezon City, did not need a search confirm the reports of drug pushing in the area. They saw
warrant; this, for possible effective results in the interest petitioner selling “something” to another person. After the
of public order. alleged buyer left, they approached petitioner, identified
themselves as policemen and frisked him. The search yielded 2
Such being the case, the personalities seized may be retained. plastic cellophane tea bags of marijuana. When asked if he had
by CSG, for possible introduction as evidence in the Rebellion more marijuana, he replied that there was more in his house.
Case, leaving it to AGUILAR-ROQUE to object to their relevance The policemen went to his residence where they found 10 more
and to ask Special Military Commission No.1 to return to her cellophane tea bags of marijuana. Petitioner was brought to the
any and all irrelevant documents and articles. police headquarters where he was charged with possession of
WHEREFORE, while Search Warrant No. 80-84 issued on prohibited drugs.
August 6, 1984 by respondent Executive Judge Ernani Cruz
Paño is hereby annulled and set aside, and the Temporary ISSUE: WON the articles seized are admissible in evidence.
Restraining Order enjoining respondent from introducing RULING: The two cellophane bags of marijuana seized were
admissible in evidence because he was caught in flagranti as a
evidence obtained pursuant to the Search Warrant in the
result of a buy-bust operation conducted by police officers.
Subversive Documents case hereby made permanent, the,
However, as for the other ten cellophane bags of marijuana
personalities seized may be retained by the Constabulary found at petitioner's residence, the same are inadmissible in
Security Group for possible introduction as evidence in evidence considering that the said bags were seized at
Criminal Case No. SMC-1-1, pending before Special Military petitioner's house after his arrest, hence, do not fall under the
commission No. 1, without prejudice to petitioner Mila Aguilar- exceptions provided under Article III, Section 2 of the 1987
Roque objecting to their relevance and asking said Commission Constitution.
to return to her any and all irrelevant documents and articles.

SO ORDERED.
159. IPE VS OLAT MANDO (518 SCRA 641)

158. EXPANO VS CA (288 SCRA 588)


PRINCIPLE: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; WARRANTLESS ARREST; PRINCIPLE: In People v. Sarap ,we listed the exceptions where
THE MARIJUANA SEIZED FROM PETITIONER'S HOUSE AFTER search and seizure may be conducted without warrant, thus: (1)
HIS ARREST IS INADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE; CASE AT BAR. — search incident to a lawful arrest; (2) search of a moving motor
The 1987 Constitution guarantees freedom against unreasonable vehicle; (3) search in violation of customs laws; (4) seizure of the
searches and seizures under Article III, Section 2 which provides: evidence in plain view; (5) search when the accused himself
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, waives his right against unreasonable searches and seizures; (6)
papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of stop and frisk; and (7) exigent and emergency circumstances. The
whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no only requirement in these exceptions is the presence of probable
search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon cause. Probable cause is the existence of such facts and
probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after circumstances which would lead a reasonable, discreet, and
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and
the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the
place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized." An place to be searched.
exception to the said rule is a warrantless search incidental to a
lawful arrest of dangerous weapons or anything which may be FACTS: At around 2:30 pm of September 6, 1998, a confidential
used as proof of the commission of an offense. It may extend informer disclosed to SPO2 Ngina that a passenger jeepney with
beyond the person of the one arrested to include the premises or Plate No. AYB 117 loaded with Benguet pine lumber was at Km.
surroundings under his immediate control. 96, Atok, Benguet. The lumber was covered with assorted
vegetables. A PNP roadblock was then placed in Acop, Tublay,
FACTS: Petitioner was caught in possession of and under his Benguet to intercept the jeepney. At around 4pm of that same
custody 12 plastic cellophane bags containing crushed day, the police spotted the vehicle. They flagged it down but it
flowering tops, marijuana. did not stop, forcing the police to chase it until it reached Shilan,
La Trinidad. A search of the vehicle disclosed several pieces of
Benguet pine lumber. Petitioner could not produce the required

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


132
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

DENR permit to cut and transport the same. The police


immediately arrested and investigated petitioners. Petitioners
were charged with violation of Section 68 of the Revised
Forestry Code.

ISSUE: Whether there was probable cause to justify such


warrantless search and seizure.

RULING: Yes. In People v. Vinecarao, we ruled that where a


vehicle sped away after noticing a checkpoint and even after
having been flagged down by police officers, in an apparent
attempt to dissuade the police from proceeding with their
inspection, there exists probable cause to justify a reasonable
belief on the part of the law enforcers that the persons on board
said vehicle were officers of the law or that the vehicle
contained objects which were instruments of some offense.
This ruling squarely applies to the present case. Verily, the
Court of Appeals did not err in holding that respondent judge
did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction when she ruled that the warrantless
search is valid and that the lumber seized is admissible in
evidence against petitioners.

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


133
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

probable cause for the warrantless search of the Gemini car and
the eventual admission into evidence of the plastic packets
160. PP CS TUAZON (532 SCRA 152) against appellant.
PRINCIPLE: In the case of People v. Lo Ho Wing , this Court had
the occasion to elucidate on the rationale for the exemption of In any case, appellant failed to timely object to the admissibility
searches of moving vehicles from the requirement of search of the evidence against him on the ground that the same was
warrant, thus: THIECD obtained through a warrantless search. His failure amounts to
a waiver of the objection on the legality of the search and the
[T]he rules governing search and seizure have over the years admissibility of the evidence obtained by the police. It was only
been steadily liberalized whenever a moving vehicle is the object proper for the trial court to admit said evidence.
of the search on the basis of practicality. This is so considering
that before a warrant could be obtained, the place, things and In this case, we find that the assailed decision of the trial court
persons to be searched must be described to the satisfaction of the substantially complied with the requirements of the
issuing judge — a requirement which borders on the impossible Constitution. The decision contained a summary of the facts of
in the case of smuggling effected by the use of a moving vehicle the case as presented by the prosecution and by the defense. It
that can transport contraband from one place to another with likewise contained an explanation as to why it found appellant
impunity. We might add that a warrantless search of a moving guilty as charged. Admittedly, the decision is brief but to our
vehicle is justified on the ground that "it is not practicable to mind, it sufficiently informed appellant as regards the bases
secure a warrant because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of for his conviction. It readily informs appellant that the trial
the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought." court disregarded his defense of bare denial in favor of the
presumption of regularity in the performance of duties
FACTS: The Antipolo City Police Station received through
enjoyed by police officers.
telephone, a confidential information that a Gemini Car bearing
plate No. PFC 411 would deliver an unspecified amount of
shabu in Marville Subdivision, Antipolo City. Acting on said tip,
Antipolo City Chief of Police dispatched a team of policemen to 161. WORLDWIDE WEB VS PP (GR 161106 1/13/2014)
the area to conduct a surveillance. When the team arrived in
Marville Subdivision, they saw the said Gemini car and
immediately flagged it down. The driver of the car pulled to a
stop and opened a window of said vehicle giving the policemen Principle: A search warrant fulfills the requirement of
the opportunity to identify themselves as members of the particularity in the description of the things to be seized when the
Antipolo City Police Station. It was then that PO1 Padlan saw a things described are limited to those that bear a direct relation
gun tucked on appellant's waist. PO1 Padlan inquired about the to the offense for which the warrant is being issued
gun and appellant allegedly replied it did not belong to him nor
could he produce any pertinent document relating to said Facts:
firearm. This prompted PO3 Bueno to order appellant to get
down from the car. As soon as appellant stepped down from the Worldwide Web filed the present Petitions under Rule
vehicle, PO3 Bueno saw five plastic sachets on the driver's seat, 45 of the Rules of Court to set aside the Decision of the Court of
the contents of which appellant allegedly admitted to be shabu. Appeals (CA) reversing the quashal of the search warrants
Appellant was thereafter immediately brought to the police previously issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
station and was charged with illegal possession of shabu.
Police Chief Inspector Napoleon Villegas of the Regional
ISSUE: Was the arrest valid and were the shabu seized Intelligence Special Operations Office (RISOO) of the Philippine
admissible in evidence against the accused? National Police filed applications for warrants3 before the RTC
of Quezon City, Branch 78, to search the office premises of
RULING: Yes. When a vehicle is flagged down and subjected to petitioner Worldwide Web Corporation (WWC)4 located at the
an extensive search, such a warrantless search has been held to 11th floor, IBM Plaza Building, No. 188 Eastwood City, Libis,
be valid as long as the officers conducting the search have Quezon City, as well as the office premises of petitioner Planet
reasonable or probable cause to believe prior to the search that Internet Corporation (Planet Internet)5 located at UN 2103,
they would find the instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a 21/F Orient Square Building, Emerald Avenue, Barangay San
crime, in the vehicle to be searched. Antonio, Pasig City. The applications alleged that petitioners
In this case, we hold that the police had probable cause to effect were conducting illegal toll bypass operations, which amounted
the warrantless search of the Gemini car driven by appellant. to theft and violation of Presidential Decree No. 401 (Penalizing
The circumstances, taken together, are sufficient to establish the Unauthorized Installation of Water, Electrical or Telephone

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


134
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

Connections, the Use of Tampered Water or Electrical Meters filed in court or in anticipation of one yet to be filed.40 Whether
and Other Acts), to the damage and prejudice of the Philippine the criminal case (of which the search warrant is an incident)
Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT).6 has already been filed before the trial court is significant for the
purpose of determining the proper remedy from a grant or
The RTC granted the motions to quash on the ground that the denial of a motion to quash a search warrant.
warrants issued were in the nature of general warrants.25 Thus,
the properties seized under the said warrants were ordered Where the search warrant is issued as an incident in a pending
released to petitioners. criminal case, as it was in Marcelo, the quashal of a search
warrant is merely interlocutory. There is still "something more
PLDT moved for reconsideration,26 but its motion was to be done in the said criminal case, i.e., the determination of
denied27 on the ground that it had failed to get the conformity the guilt of the accused therein."41
of the City Prosecutor prior to filing the motion, as required
under Section 5, Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. In contrast, where a search warrant is applied for and issued in
anticipation of a criminal case yet to be filed, the order quashing
The CA reversed and set aside the assailed RTC Resolutions and the warrant (and denial of a motion for reconsideration of the
declared the search warrants valid and effective.28 grant) ends the judicial process. There is nothing more to be
done thereafter.
ISSUE:
Thus, the CA correctly ruled that Marcelo does not apply to this
case. Here, the applications for search warrants were instituted
Whether the CA seriously erred in holding that the
as principal proceedings and not as incidents to pending
assailed search warrants were not general warrants.
criminal actions. When the search warrants issued were
subsequently quashed by the RTC, there was nothing left to be
done by the trial court. Thus, the quashal of the search warrants
were final orders, not interlocutory, and an appeal may be
HELD: properly taken therefrom.

1. An application for a search warrant is not a criminal III.


action; conformity of the public prosecutor is not necessary to
give the aggrieved party personality to question an order The requirement of particularity in the description of things
quashing search warrants. to
be seized is fulfilled when the items described in the search
Furthermore, as we held in Malaloan v. Court of Appeals, 35 an warrant bear a direct relation to the offense for which the
application for a search warrant is a "special criminal process," warrant is sought.
rather than a criminal action:
In this case, considering that items that looked like
The basic flaw in this reasoning is in erroneously equating the "innocuous goods" were being used to pursue an illegal
application for and the obtention of a search warrant with the operation that amounts to theft, law enforcement officers
institution and prosecution of a criminal action in a trial court. would be hard put to secure a search warrant if they were
It would thus categorize what is only a special criminal process, required to pinpoint items with one hundred percent
the power to issue which is inherent in all courts, as equivalent precision. In
to a criminal action, jurisdiction over which is reposed in
specific courts of indicated competence. It ignores the fact that People v. Veloso, we pronounced that "[t]he police should not
the requisites, procedure and purpose for the issuance of a be hindered in the performance of their duties, which are
search warrant are completely different from those for the difficult enough of performance under the best of conditions,
institution of a criminal action. by superficial adherence to technicality or far-fetched
judicial interference."65
2. An order quashing a search warrant, which was issued
independently prior to the filing of a criminal action, partakes A search warrant fulfills the requirement of particularity in
of a final order that can be the proper subject of an appeal. the description of the things to be seized when the things
described are limited to those that bear a direct relation to
An application for a search warrant is a judicial process the offense for which the warrant is being issued.66
conducted either as an incident in a main criminal case already

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


135
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

Instead of presenting its evidence, the defense filed a Demurrer


to Evidence alleging the illegality of the search and seizure of
the items thereby violating accused-appellants constitutional
right against unreasonable search and seizure as well as
their inadmissibility in evidence.
162. PP VS ARUTA (288 SCRA 626)
The said Demurrer to Evidence was, however, denied
without the trial court ruling on the alleged illegality of the
Principle : Lawful arrest must precede the search. Where a search and seizure and the inadmissibility in evidence of the
search is first undertaken, and an arrest effected based on items seized to avoid pre-judgment. Instead, the trial court
evidence produced by the search, both such search and arrest continued to hear the case. Eventually, the trial court convicted
would be unlawful, for being contrary to law. the accused.

Facts: ISSUE: Whether the warrantless arrest was valid.

Rosa Aruta y Menguin was arrested and charged with violating


Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425 or the Dangerous HELD: NO.
Drugs Act.
The right of a person to be secured against any
The prosecution substantially relied on the testimonies of unreasonable seizure of his body and any deprivation of his
P/Lt. Ernesto Abello, Officer-in-Charge of the Narcotics liberty is a most basic and fundamental one. A statute, rule or
Command (NARCOM) of Olongapo City and P/Lt. Jose situation which allows exceptions to the requirement of a
Domingo. Based on their testimonies, the court a quo found the warrant of arrest or search warrant must perforce be strictly
following: construed and their application limited only to cases
specifically provided or allowed by law. To do otherwise is an
On December 13, 1988, P/Lt. Abello was tipped off by his infringement upon personal liberty and would set back a right
informant, known only as Benjie, that a certain Aling Rosa so basic and deserving of full protection and vindication yet
would be arriving from Baguio City the following day, often violated.[7]
December 14, 1988, with a large volume of marijuana. Acting
on said tip, P/Lt. Abello assembled a team composed of P/Lt. The following cases are specifically provided or allowed
Jose Domingo, Sgt. Angel Sudiacal, Sgt. Oscar Imperial, Sgt. by law:
Danilo Santiago and Sgt. Efren Quirubin.
1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest recognized
While thus positioned, a Victory Liner Bus with body number under Section 12, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court [8] and by
474 and the letters BGO printed on its front and back bumpers prevailing jurisprudence;
stopped in front of the PNB building at around 6:30 in the
evening of the same day from where two females and a male got 2. Seizure of evidence in plain view, the elements of which are:
off. It was at this stage that the informant pointed out to the
team Aling Rosa who was then carrying a travelling bag. (a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest
in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their
Having ascertained that accused-appellant was Aling Rosa, the official duties;
team approached her and introduced themselves as NARCOM
agents. When P/Lt. Abello asked Aling Rosa about the contents (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police
of her bag, the latter handed it to the former. who had the right to be where they are;

Upon inspection, the bag was found to contain dried marijuana (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent, and
leaves packed in a plastic bag marked Cash Katutak. The team
confiscated the bag together with the Victory Liner bus ticket to
(d) plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without
which Lt. Domingo affixed his signature. Accused-appellant was
further search;
then brought to the NARCOM office for investigation where a
Receipt of Property Seized was prepared for the confiscated
marijuana leaves. 3. Search of a moving vehicle. Highly regulated by the
government, the vehicles inherent mobility reduces

QUANTUM LEAP (USJ-R SCHOOL OF LAW BATCH 2017) TEAM


136
QL
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASE DIGESTS
(JUDGE DEBALUCOS)

expectation of privacy especially when its transit in public warrantless search and seizure of accused-appellants bag,
thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion accused-appellant must have been validly arrested under
amounting to probable cause that the occupant committed a Section 5 of Rule 113 which provides inter alia:
criminal activity;
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. - A peace officer or
4. Consented warrantless search; a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

5. Customs search;[9] (a) When in his presence, the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit
6. Stop and Frisk;[10] and an offense;

7. Exigent and Emergency Circumstances.[11] xxx xxx xxx.

The above exceptions, however, should not become Accused-appellant Aruta cannot be said to be committing
unbridled licenses for law enforcement officers to trample a crime. Neither was she about to commit one nor had she just
upon the constitutionally guaranteed and more fundamental committed a crime. Accused-appellant was merely crossing the
right of persons against unreasonable search and seizures. The street and was not acting in any manner that would engender a
essential requisite of probable cause must still be reasonable ground for the NARCOM agents to suspect and
satisfied before a warrantless search and seizure can be conclude that she was committing a crime. It was only when the
lawfully conducted. informant pointed to accused-appellant and identified her to
the agents as the carrier of the marijuana that she was singled
Although probable cause eludes exact and concrete out as the suspect. The NARCOM agents would not have
definition, it generally signifies a reasonable ground of apprehended accused-appellant were it not for the furtive
suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in finger of the informant because, as clearly illustrated by the
themselves to warrant a cautious man to believe that the evidence on record, there was no reason whatsoever for them
person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is to suspect that accused-appellant was committing a crime,
charged. It likewise refers to the existence of such facts and except for the pointing finger of the informant. This the Court
circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and could neither sanction nor tolerate as it is a clear violation of
prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable search and
that the item(s), article(s) or object(s) sought in connection seizure. Neither was there any semblance of any compliance
with said offense or subject to seizure and destruction by law is with the rigid requirements of probable cause and warrantless
in the place to be searched.[12] arrests.
It ought to be emphasized that in determining probable Consequently, there was no legal basis for the NARCOM
cause, the average man weighs facts and circumstances without agents to effect a warrantless search of accused-appellants bag,
resorting to the calibrations of our rules of evidence of which there being no probable cause and the accused-appellant not
his knowledge is technically nil. Rather, he relies on the calculus having been lawfully arrested. Stated otherwise, the arrest
of common sense which all reasonable men have in abundance. being incipiently illegal, it logically follows that the subsequent
The same quantum of evidence is required in determining search was similarly illegal, it being not incidental to a lawful
probable cause relative to search. Before a search warrant can arrest. The constitutional guarantee against unreasonable
be issued, it must be shown by substantial evidence that the search and seizure must perforce operate in favor of accused-
items sought are in fact seizable by virtue of being connected appellant. As such, the articles seized could not be used as
with criminal activity, and that the items will be found in the evidence against accused-appellant for these are fruits of a
place to be searched.[13] poisoned tree and, therefore, must be rejected, pursuant to
Article III, Sec. 3(2) of the Constitution.
In searches and seizures effected without a warrant, it is
necessary for probable cause to be present. Absent any Emphasis is to be laid on the fact that the law requires that
probable cause, the article(s) seized could not be admitted and the search be incidental to a lawful arrest, in order that the
used as evidence against the person arrested. Probable cause, search itself may likewise be co